Justin Sun Wins Defamation Lawsuit Against Sina.com and Receives Public Apology

2025-02-27 19:57

Read this article in 10 Minutes

AI summary

View the summary

Source: Tron

The rumors of being investigated by the FBI have always been a cloud hanging over Justin Sun, the global advisor of HTX and the founder of Tron Foundation. As a result, the individual and associated industries have paid a significant price in terms of public perception. However, truth cannot be falsified, and falsehood cannot become truth. Now, with the support of the People's Court, Justin Sun has completely dispelled these shadowy rumors.

Recently, Beijing Sina Internet Information Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sina.com) officially issued a public apology statement, acknowledging that its published false reports about Justin Sun, the founder of Tron Foundation, constituted an infringement of Justin Sun's reputation. This apology statement signifies that Sina.com has accepted the first-instance judgment of the Beijing Internet Court on Justin Sun's lawsuit against Sina.com for reputation infringement, marking the end of a 6-year-long legal battle with Justin Sun emerging victorious. This is also the second time in nearly a year that Justin Sun has won in a personal reputation infringement case. It is worth noting that both of the aforementioned cases revolved around media's false reports related to him personally.

Rule of Law as the Criterion: Even Authoritative Media Must Respect Facts

According to the civil judgment document issued by the Beijing Internet Court regarding this case, from 2019 to 2022, Sina.com published articles and related special content on its finance channel with titles such as "Video: Justin Sun - The Most Outrageous Post-90s Playing with Post-90s Elderly Man!" and "Justin Sun Suspected of Insider Trading, FBI and IRS Have Launched Investigations." These articles, especially those with clearly negative connotations in the headlines, led the public to lower their social assessment of Justin Sun himself. The reports also claimed that Justin Sun was involved in inappropriate trading activities and other false information. This series of reports was not thoroughly verified, and were sensationalized with very serious accusations, sparking widespread social attention and public discussion.

The judgment document also pointed out that some reports cited an article from the foreign media outlet The Verge, many of the allegations in which were not substantiated. The Verge's report quoted unnamed sources, mentioned multiple unsubstantiated claims, but failed to provide official evidence or confirmation. Without factual basis, this content was further reproduced and spread by Sina.com, causing serious damage to Justin Sun's reputation.

Faced with false reports, Justin Sun promptly countered through social media, clearly stating that the related reports were false information and had hired a lawyer to pursue legal action against the publisher. However, Sina.com continued to disseminate this false information without proper verification, further harming Justin Sun's reputation. In response, Justin Sun decided to protect his legitimate rights through legal means.

After six years of legal battle, the Beijing Internet Court finally issued a judgment, determining that Sina.com had failed in its review obligation, published severely untrue content, and infringed Justin Sun's reputation rights. The court required Sina.com to delete the relevant reports, publicly apologize to Justin Sun in newspapers published nationwide and on its official website, and provide compensation.

This ruling powerfully demonstrates that in a society ruled by law, judicial impartiality will not be swayed because the defendant is an authoritative media outlet. The court's strict review of evidence, precise delineation of the boundary between freedom of speech and reputation rights, showcased the judicial principle of "basing decisions on facts and relying on the law."

This victory in the case is not only a successful defense of Justin Sun's personal reputation rights but also provides valuable experience for public figures on how to protect their rights through legal means when facing false reports. Experts stated that the media must rigorously verify their sources of information when reporting on public figures and events to avoid one-sided dissemination of unverified content, which could lead to unjust harm and corresponding legal responsibilities.

It is worth noting that in June 2024, Justin Sun also won another lawsuit. In this case involving a reputation dispute with the Chongqing Business Media Group, the Yubei District People's Court in Chongqing determined that the media had published unfounded content about Justin Sun, leading to harm to his reputation, and ordered the Chongqing Business Media Group to publicly apologize and compensate for related expenses. The court emphasized that the media must fulfill its necessary verification obligations when reporting on public figures to ensure the authenticity of the content.

Breaking Bias: Justin Sun's "Victorious Legal Breakthrough"

For a long time, Justin Sun has been labeled with terms like "Rug Pull" and "Hype" due to some of his actions and views in the cryptocurrency field. In this ruling, the court found that some Sina articles lacked sufficient factual basis for using terms such as "fraud," "money laundering," and "FBI investigation," and did not balance the reporting with Justin Sun's public rebuttals, ultimately constituting a violation of his reputation.

For Justin Sun, this victory is not only a legal triumph but also a crucial turning point in his public image. The judgment mentioned that Justin Sun actively provided evidence in the lawsuit, clarified multiple times through social media, and entrusted lawyers to defend his rights, ultimately clearing his name of false accusations through legal means. The court's support allowed him to "take a breath of fresh air" from long-standing negative public opinion, setting an example for legal rights protection among blockchain industry practitioners.

This case's ruling exposed the downside of "label-based cognition" in the public opinion arena. In the past, Justin Sun was often portrayed by the media as a "crypto speculator," but the court determined that some accusations lacked evidence, and even involved fabrication and distortion. For instance, the judgment pointed out that the so-called "FBI investigation" content actually referenced unverified information and was severely unbalanced compared to Justin Sun's public responses.

This outcome serves as a reminder to the public: in this age of information overload, any evaluation of an individual should be based on facts rather than rumors. Justin Sun, after the ruling, stated that he would "continue to focus on the compliance of blockchain technology," highlighting his efforts in recent years to promote dialogue between the industry and regulators, which may warrant a more objective review.

The successful outcome of the Justin Sun case upholds individuals' rights under the rule of law and serves as a warning to the media regarding responsibility. It demonstrates that whether a public figure or an ordinary citizen, the right to reputation is equally protected by the law. At the same time, this case also provides an opportunity for society to reflect—only by abandoning preconceived notions, relying on facts as the basis, and respecting the law's limits can a more rational and just public opinion environment be built.

Justin Sun's "comeback" and "breakthrough" may have just begun, and the next episode promises to be even more exciting.