Loading
Media
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Journalism, Economics, Psychology, Human Resources, Defamation
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Florida State
Court:
Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Bay County, Florida
Young v. Cable News Network, Inc. involved U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and Nemex Enterprises Inc. in a defamation dispute over CNN's reporting on private evacuation efforts after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. In a November 11, 2021 report, CNN identified Young by name and photograph while discussing high evacuation costs and describing the private evacuation market as a “black market.” Young alleged that the report falsely portrayed his activities as illegal, unethical, or exploitative and harmed his professional reputation and earning capacity.
The case proceeded in the Circuit Court for Florida's Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Bay County. The litigation examined the meaning of CNN's reporting, Young's status as a private plaintiff, actual malice, punitive damages, financial losses, employability, and psychological harm. After appellate proceedings and several pretrial rulings, including the dismissal of Nemex's remaining claim, Young's jury trial began in Panama City in January 2025.
CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper aired a report by correspondent Alex Marquardt about Afghans seeking private assistance to leave the country after the Taliban takeover. The segment discussed private evacuation operators, high costs, and what CNN described in its introduction and on-screen graphics as a “black market.” Zachary Young was identified by name and photograph and was the only private evacuation operator profiled in the report.
CNN later republished related reporting through another television program, its website, and social-media accounts. The related online article did not itself use the phrase “black market.”
CNN aired a correction on The Lead with Jake Tapper, delivered by Pamela Brown while she was filling in for Jake Tapper. The network said that its use of the term “black market” had been an error, stated that it had not intended to suggest that Young participated in a black market, and apologized to him.
Young's later claims covered the television report as well as related website and social-media publications.
Young and Nemex filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2022. They filed a parallel action in Bay County on June 15.
On July 14, the federal court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss after determining that Young, a U.S. citizen domiciled in Austria, was considered stateless for diversity-jurisdiction purposes and therefore could not establish federal diversity jurisdiction. The defamation claims continued in Florida state court.
Circuit Judge William S. Henry allowed Young and Nemex to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages. Their evidentiary proffer included internal CNN communications, exchanges between Young and CNN personnel, and invoices involving corporate and nonprofit evacuation sponsors.
The court found that the plaintiffs had made the preliminary showing required under Florida law to pursue punitive damages. CNN appealed the ruling.
Florida's First District Court of Appeal affirmed the order allowing Young and Nemex to pursue punitive damages. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs had presented a sufficient preliminary evidentiary showing concerning actual malice, express malice, and the conduct alleged to support punitive damages.
The ruling did not determine whether punitive damages would ultimately be awarded. The case then returned to the Bay County Circuit Court.
In an October 22 partial summary-judgment order, Judge Henry found no genuine dispute that Young had not engaged in illegal or criminal conduct. Questions remained about how viewers could understand CNN's use of “black market” and whether the overall publications were defamatory.
The court separately ruled that references to “exorbitant” fees and “exploitation” were statements of opinion and were not independently actionable.
Additional rulings in December treated Young and Nemex as private plaintiffs rather than public figures. Because Young was a private plaintiff, actual malice was not required to establish ordinary defamation liability, although it remained relevant to his request for punitive damages.
On December 6, Judge Henry also entered summary judgment for CNN on Nemex's remaining trade-libel claim, leaving Young's claims to proceed to trial.
Jury selection began on January 6 in Bay County, Florida. Testimony covered CNN's reporting process, internal communications, Young's Afghanistan evacuation activities, and his claims of financial and personal harm.
Experts included retired Army Major General James V. Young Jr., CPA Richard Bolko, and clinical psychologist Dr. John Vincent. CNN challenged the plaintiffs' claims and expert opinions through cross-examination and its defense evidence.
After approximately two weeks of trial, the six-person jury found CNN liable for defaming Young. It awarded $4 million for lost earnings and $1 million for personal damages, for a total compensatory award of $5 million.
The jury also found that punitive damages were warranted. The proceeding then moved to a separate phase to determine the amount.
CNN and Young reached a settlement later that day while the punitive-damages phase was underway. Judge Henry announced the agreement before the jury determined a punitive-damages amount.
The financial terms and other provisions of the settlement were not disclosed.
Case Name:
Zachary Young and Nemex Enterprises, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.
Libel
Slander
Loss of Earnings
Damages Calculations
Employability
Young v. Cable News Network, Inc. involved U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young and Nemex Enterprises Inc. in a defamation dispute over CNN's reporting on private evacuation efforts after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. In a November 11, 2021 report, CNN identified Young by name and photograph while discussing high evacuation costs and describing the private evacuation market as a “black market.” Young alleged that the report falsely portrayed his activities as illegal, unethical, or exploitative and harmed his professional reputation and earning capacity.
The case proceeded in the Circuit Court for Florida's Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in Bay County. The litigation examined the meaning of CNN's reporting, Young's status as a private plaintiff, actual malice, punitive damages, financial losses, employability, and psychological harm. After appellate proceedings and several pretrial rulings, including the dismissal of Nemex's remaining claim, Young's jury trial began in Panama City in January 2025.
CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper aired a report by correspondent Alex Marquardt about Afghans seeking private assistance to leave the country after the Taliban takeover. The segment discussed private evacuation operators, high costs, and what CNN described in its introduction and on-screen graphics as a “black market.” Zachary Young was identified by name and photograph and was the only private evacuation operator profiled in the report.
CNN later republished related reporting through another television program, its website, and social-media accounts. The related online article did not itself use the phrase “black market.”
CNN aired a correction on The Lead with Jake Tapper, delivered by Pamela Brown while she was filling in for Jake Tapper. The network said that its use of the term “black market” had been an error, stated that it had not intended to suggest that Young participated in a black market, and apologized to him.
Young's later claims covered the television report as well as related website and social-media publications.
Young and Nemex filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2022. They filed a parallel action in Bay County on June 15.
On July 14, the federal court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss after determining that Young, a U.S. citizen domiciled in Austria, was considered stateless for diversity-jurisdiction purposes and therefore could not establish federal diversity jurisdiction. The defamation claims continued in Florida state court.
Circuit Judge William S. Henry allowed Young and Nemex to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages. Their evidentiary proffer included internal CNN communications, exchanges between Young and CNN personnel, and invoices involving corporate and nonprofit evacuation sponsors.
The court found that the plaintiffs had made the preliminary showing required under Florida law to pursue punitive damages. CNN appealed the ruling.
Florida's First District Court of Appeal affirmed the order allowing Young and Nemex to pursue punitive damages. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs had presented a sufficient preliminary evidentiary showing concerning actual malice, express malice, and the conduct alleged to support punitive damages.
The ruling did not determine whether punitive damages would ultimately be awarded. The case then returned to the Bay County Circuit Court.
In an October 22 partial summary-judgment order, Judge Henry found no genuine dispute that Young had not engaged in illegal or criminal conduct. Questions remained about how viewers could understand CNN's use of “black market” and whether the overall publications were defamatory.
The court separately ruled that references to “exorbitant” fees and “exploitation” were statements of opinion and were not independently actionable.
Additional rulings in December treated Young and Nemex as private plaintiffs rather than public figures. Because Young was a private plaintiff, actual malice was not required to establish ordinary defamation liability, although it remained relevant to his request for punitive damages.
On December 6, Judge Henry also entered summary judgment for CNN on Nemex's remaining trade-libel claim, leaving Young's claims to proceed to trial.
Jury selection began on January 6 in Bay County, Florida. Testimony covered CNN's reporting process, internal communications, Young's Afghanistan evacuation activities, and his claims of financial and personal harm.
Experts included retired Army Major General James V. Young Jr., CPA Richard Bolko, and clinical psychologist Dr. John Vincent. CNN challenged the plaintiffs' claims and expert opinions through cross-examination and its defense evidence.
After approximately two weeks of trial, the six-person jury found CNN liable for defaming Young. It awarded $4 million for lost earnings and $1 million for personal damages, for a total compensatory award of $5 million.
The jury also found that punitive damages were warranted. The proceeding then moved to a separate phase to determine the amount.
CNN and Young reached a settlement later that day while the punitive-damages phase was underway. Judge Henry announced the agreement before the jury determined a punitive-damages amount.
The financial terms and other provisions of the settlement were not disclosed.
Retired Army Major General James V. Young Jr., who is not related to Zachary Young, testified for the plaintiff. His opinions covered Afghanistan evacuation conditions, evacuation pricing, professional reputation in the security and intelligence field, and employment opportunities within that sector.
His testimony provided industry context for Young's work and the professional environment in which his claimed reputational and employment losses were evaluated.
Richard Bolko, CPA, evaluated Young's claimed financial losses. He reviewed past earnings and projected future income and estimated approximately $21.3 million in losses.
CNN challenged the assumptions and methodology underlying those calculations. His analysis formed part of the dispute over the extent of Young's claimed economic damages.
Dr. John Vincent, a clinical psychologist, evaluated Young's psychological condition. He testified about depression, trauma-related symptoms, and whether the conditions he diagnosed were associated with the effects Young attributed to CNN's publications.
His opinions addressed the personal-harm component of Young's damages claims rather than his alleged financial losses.
CNN retained Brian Buss, CFA, to analyze Young's financial records, claimed lost income, profits, and mitigation efforts. His proposed testimony addressed financial records and the calculation of damages from the defense perspective.
The court permitted Buss to testify about financial records and damages issues but limited portions of his proposed testimony, including an opinion that CNN's publications caused no lost income or profits.
CNN retained Richard Humphries, a human-resources professional, to address Young's employability and mitigation efforts following the publications.
Humphries was permitted to discuss reasonable job-search efforts and the types of employment Young might be qualified to pursue. The court barred him from giving an opinion on whether CNN's publications caused Young's inability to obtain work.
Together, the financial, psychological, military-security, and employment testimony addressed different parts of Young's claimed damages. The experts did not all examine the same question: some focused on the amount of alleged losses, while others considered professional opportunities, mitigation, psychological effects, or the broader context of Afghanistan evacuation work.
A central dispute concerned how viewers could reasonably understand CNN's use of the phrase “black market.” CNN used the term in the introduction and graphics accompanying its television reporting that identified Young.
The parties disputed whether viewers would understand the phrase as suggesting illegal activity or as describing an unregulated market for private Afghanistan evacuation services. CNN's related online article did not itself use the phrase “black market.”
CNN later acknowledged on air that its use of “black market” had been an error. The correction stated that the network did not intend to suggest that Young participated in a black market and included an apology to him.
The correction became part of the broader factual record concerning CNN's reporting and the publications challenged in the lawsuit.
Before trial, the court separated statements that could support a defamation claim from statements it considered nonactionable opinion. Judge Henry ruled that references to “exorbitant” fees and “exploitation” were statements of opinion and were not independently actionable.
At the same time, questions remained for trial concerning the meaning and defamatory effect of the broader publications, including CNN's use of “black market.”
Young was treated as a private plaintiff rather than a public figure for purposes of his defamation claims. As a result, actual malice was not required to establish ordinary defamation liability.
Actual malice remained relevant, however, to Young's request for punitive damages. The appellate proceedings concerning punitive damages addressed whether the plaintiffs had made the preliminary evidentiary showing required to pursue that relief.
Young sought compensation for lost earnings, reduced business opportunities, reputational harm, and psychological effects. CNN disputed both causation and the amount of the claimed losses.
The damages evidence therefore extended beyond accounting calculations. It included testimony concerning Young's professional field, employment prospects, mitigation efforts, financial records, and psychological condition.
On January 17, 2025, the Bay County jury found CNN liable for defaming Zachary Young and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. The award consisted of $4 million for lost earnings and $1 million for personal damages.
The jury also found that punitive damages were warranted, but it did not determine a dollar amount. CNN and Young reached a confidential settlement while the punitive-damages phase was underway, ending the remaining trial proceedings before the jury calculated any punitive-damages award.
Why did the term “black market” become central to the lawsuit?
CNN used “black market” in the introduction and graphics accompanying its television report while identifying Zachary Young by name and photograph. Young alleged that the description falsely associated his Afghanistan evacuation activities with illegal or improper conduct. CNN later said the phrase had been used in error and apologized to him.
Did the court find Zachary Young's Afghanistan evacuation work illegal?
No. Before trial, the Bay County court ruled that there was no genuine dispute that Young had not engaged in illegal or criminal conduct. Other questions concerning how viewers could understand CNN's reporting and whether the publications were defamatory remained for the jury.
Why was actual malice relevant if Young was a private plaintiff?
Because Young was treated as a private plaintiff, actual malice was not required to establish ordinary defamation liability. It remained relevant to his request for punitive damages, which required a separate showing under Florida law.
What types of expert testimony were presented in the case?
The litigation included expert testimony and proposed opinions in military and security matters, economic damages, clinical psychology, financial analysis, and human resources. These experts addressed Afghanistan evacuation conditions, claimed income losses, psychological effects, financial records, mitigation, employability, and employment opportunities.
Did the jury determine a punitive-damages amount against CNN?
No. The jury found that punitive damages were warranted, but CNN and Young reached a confidential settlement while the punitive-damages phase was underway. The jury therefore did not determine a dollar amount for punitive damages.
Retired Army Major General James V. Young Jr., who is not related to Zachary Young, testified for the plaintiff. His opinions covered Afghanistan evacuation conditions, evacuation pricing, professional reputation in the security and intelligence field, and employment opportunities within that sector.
His testimony provided industry context for Young's work and the professional environment in which his claimed reputational and employment losses were evaluated.
Richard Bolko, CPA, evaluated Young's claimed financial losses. He reviewed past earnings and projected future income and estimated approximately $21.3 million in losses.
CNN challenged the assumptions and methodology underlying those calculations. His analysis formed part of the dispute over the extent of Young's claimed economic damages.
Dr. John Vincent, a clinical psychologist, evaluated Young's psychological condition. He testified about depression, trauma-related symptoms, and whether the conditions he diagnosed were associated with the effects Young attributed to CNN's publications.
His opinions addressed the personal-harm component of Young's damages claims rather than his alleged financial losses.
CNN retained Brian Buss, CFA, to analyze Young's financial records, claimed lost income, profits, and mitigation efforts. His proposed testimony addressed financial records and the calculation of damages from the defense perspective.
The court permitted Buss to testify about financial records and damages issues but limited portions of his proposed testimony, including an opinion that CNN's publications caused no lost income or profits.
CNN retained Richard Humphries, a human-resources professional, to address Young's employability and mitigation efforts following the publications.
Humphries was permitted to discuss reasonable job-search efforts and the types of employment Young might be qualified to pursue. The court barred him from giving an opinion on whether CNN's publications caused Young's inability to obtain work.
Together, the financial, psychological, military-security, and employment testimony addressed different parts of Young's claimed damages. The experts did not all examine the same question: some focused on the amount of alleged losses, while others considered professional opportunities, mitigation, psychological effects, or the broader context of Afghanistan evacuation work.
A central dispute concerned how viewers could reasonably understand CNN's use of the phrase “black market.” CNN used the term in the introduction and graphics accompanying its television reporting that identified Young.
The parties disputed whether viewers would understand the phrase as suggesting illegal activity or as describing an unregulated market for private Afghanistan evacuation services. CNN's related online article did not itself use the phrase “black market.”
CNN later acknowledged on air that its use of “black market” had been an error. The correction stated that the network did not intend to suggest that Young participated in a black market and included an apology to him.
The correction became part of the broader factual record concerning CNN's reporting and the publications challenged in the lawsuit.
Before trial, the court separated statements that could support a defamation claim from statements it considered nonactionable opinion. Judge Henry ruled that references to “exorbitant” fees and “exploitation” were statements of opinion and were not independently actionable.
At the same time, questions remained for trial concerning the meaning and defamatory effect of the broader publications, including CNN's use of “black market.”
Young was treated as a private plaintiff rather than a public figure for purposes of his defamation claims. As a result, actual malice was not required to establish ordinary defamation liability.
Actual malice remained relevant, however, to Young's request for punitive damages. The appellate proceedings concerning punitive damages addressed whether the plaintiffs had made the preliminary evidentiary showing required to pursue that relief.
Young sought compensation for lost earnings, reduced business opportunities, reputational harm, and psychological effects. CNN disputed both causation and the amount of the claimed losses.
The damages evidence therefore extended beyond accounting calculations. It included testimony concerning Young's professional field, employment prospects, mitigation efforts, financial records, and psychological condition.
On January 17, 2025, the Bay County jury found CNN liable for defaming Zachary Young and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. The award consisted of $4 million for lost earnings and $1 million for personal damages.
The jury also found that punitive damages were warranted, but it did not determine a dollar amount. CNN and Young reached a confidential settlement while the punitive-damages phase was underway, ending the remaining trial proceedings before the jury calculated any punitive-damages award.
Why did the term “black market” become central to the lawsuit?
CNN used “black market” in the introduction and graphics accompanying its television report while identifying Zachary Young by name and photograph. Young alleged that the description falsely associated his Afghanistan evacuation activities with illegal or improper conduct. CNN later said the phrase had been used in error and apologized to him.
Did the court find Zachary Young's Afghanistan evacuation work illegal?
No. Before trial, the Bay County court ruled that there was no genuine dispute that Young had not engaged in illegal or criminal conduct. Other questions concerning how viewers could understand CNN's reporting and whether the publications were defamatory remained for the jury.
Why was actual malice relevant if Young was a private plaintiff?
Because Young was treated as a private plaintiff, actual malice was not required to establish ordinary defamation liability. It remained relevant to his request for punitive damages, which required a separate showing under Florida law.
What types of expert testimony were presented in the case?
The litigation included expert testimony and proposed opinions in military and security matters, economic damages, clinical psychology, financial analysis, and human resources. These experts addressed Afghanistan evacuation conditions, claimed income losses, psychological effects, financial records, mitigation, employability, and employment opportunities.
Did the jury determine a punitive-damages amount against CNN?
No. The jury found that punitive damages were warranted, but CNN and Young reached a confidential settlement while the punitive-damages phase was underway. The jury therefore did not determine a dollar amount for punitive damages.
Libel
Slander
Loss of Earnings
Damages Calculations
Employability