A Chinese court has ruled in favour of Binance in its defamation lawsuit against Bloomberg Businessweek’s China branch. This case arose from a 2022 article titled ‘Changpeng Zhao’s Ponzi Scheme,’ which was later amended to ‘The Mysterious Changpeng Zhao.’ Binance objected to the title change and pursued legal action, ultimately winning the case.
Binance Defamation Case
The contested Bloomberg article addressed Binance’s marketing strategies, promotion of memecoins, and the Terra/Luna crash. It also claimed that Binance had a ‘Shanghai office’ and lacked proper compliance departments. These assertions, originating from KPMG and reiterated by the media, formed the crux of the defamation claim.
The court has mandated that Bloomberg contribute to children with special needs. Public reactions have largely been critical of Bloomberg, while Binance celebrates the victory. Critics have labelled the original article as misleading and unprofessional.
Crypto Firms Win Defamation Cases
This win for Binance mirrors a similar case involving Justin Sun, who also triumphed in a defamation suit in China. In Sun’s case, a minor media outlet was ordered to pay him $69 in damages. These instances highlight how crypto companies are leveraging Chinese courts to counter negative press.
Although such victories are common in China, they are less frequent in international contexts. China's weak freedom of speech laws contrast sharply with stronger protections outside the country, where similar legal threats are less feasible. This duality allows crypto firms to maintain a positive global image.
Impact on Chinese Journalism
Defamation suits in China can deter local media from publishing critical reports about cryptocurrency companies. The threat of legal consequences may stifle journalistic integrity, as reporters fear imprisonment. These legal victories can undermine the credibility of the press, casting doubt on its reliability.
Conversely, international media enjoy robust freedom of speech protections, fostering critical and investigative reporting. This disparity underscores the differences in media environments between China and other countries.
Protecting Reputation Through Legal Means
These legal decisions could serve as precedents for future defamation cases involving cryptocurrency firms in China, illustrating how these companies use legal channels to safeguard their reputations. However, global media are expected to continue their scrutiny of such topics without the same legal concerns.
While relations between Chinese courts and international media remain strained, there is ongoing interaction. Local offices face more pressure, whereas international branches benefit from stronger legal protections. This balance ensures consistent information flow despite regional legal challenges.
The court ruling may further inhibit press freedom in China, leading to concerns over journalistic integrity and credibility.
JinseFinance
Web3Go
Bitcoinist
链向资讯
Ftftx