Media could sue secretive activists Sleeping Giants Oz

A group that incites supporters to boycott brand-name advertisers could be vulnerable to court action.

Barrister Matthew Collins QC says media companies could use consumer law to allege ‘misleading and deceptive’ conduct in the way boycotts were imposed”. Picture: David Geraghty

A secretive online activist group that incites supporters to boycott brand-name advertisers in the name of “stopping hate speech” could be vulnerable to court ­action by mainstream media ­organisations wanting to claw back large sums of lost income.

Commercial law experts said yesterday the tactic used by Sleeping Giants Oz of intimidating large companies into withdrawing ads from media outlets it disliked by flooding Twitter with calls for consumers to join its blacklist had opened the door to possible legal claims for harm to trade or business.

They also confirmed the group’s anonymity — the identities of its chief backers remain sec­ret while relying on a broader public following on Twitter to maximise impact — would not help it escape legal liability if ­action proceeded.

The Australian reported yesterday how Sleeping Giants Oz had stirred negative reaction among its online supporters by adding Labor to its blacklist of ­advertisers on Sky News as part of the group’s advertising ­boycott-based strategy intended to cause financial harm to media outlets it dislikes.

Sky News has received the brunt of attacks from the activist group in recent months following an interview with Australian United Patriots Front founder Blair Cottrell — for which the network later apologised. Big name brands on the Sleeping ­Giants Oz blacklist have included Coles, Telstra, Fujitsu, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Samsung and KFC.

Other media outlets including the Seven Network, 2GB and even the ad-free ABC have been targeted by Sleeping Giants. And in a sign the group has widened its media focus, it has repeatedly singled out evening commentators on Sky News for personal attack in recent weeks.

Barrister Matthew Collins QC told The Australian that media companies could use consumer law to allege “misleading and deceptive” conduct in the way boycotts were imposed.

Successful action would depend on determining the legal basis of a boycott and “what was said” to order it that amounted to an interference with free trade and contractual relations.

Another area for potential action by media outlets was tort law, claiming “injurious falsehood”. A media company would have to prove an allegation of “hate speech” or other alleged smear was “false” and “knowingly false” in its impact on business or trade.

Sleeping Giants Oz is an Australian offshoot of US-based Sleeping Giants that started operating anonymously after the 2016 presidential election and now faces a potential lawsuit from right-wing website Brietbart for pressuring hundreds of companies into withdrawing advertisements.

While the Australian offshoot remains anonymous, the US group’s founder was outed in July this year as Matt Rivitz, an advertising copywriter.

Dr Collins said unlike the US, where anonymous free speech was protected, the identification of anonymous activists in Australia was possible in cases alleging a business was destroyed by falsehood. Courts often ordered the release of identifying IP addresses and metadata.

He said using defamation law against Sleeping Giants Oz was not an option for mainstream media organisations or big-brand advertisers because companies with more than 10 employees were exempted from suing, but individuals working for media outlets could take defamation action.

Daniel Joyce, senior lecturer in law at the University of NSW, said consumer and tort law were options for media companies.