Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Steve Wynn’s Defamation Case

Nevada Supreme Court Dismisses Steve Wynn’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Associated Press

The battle between casino mogul Steve Wynn and the Associated Press (AP) reached its final chapter as the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Wynn’s defamation lawsuit. This landmark ruling underscores the power of anti-SLAPP laws designed to protect free speech, even against the mightiest of public figures. As Wynn continues to deny the allegations against him, the court’s decision signals a resounding message on the boundaries of media and public interest.

Background of the Defamation Lawsuit

Steve Wynn, the former chairman and CEO of Wynn Resorts, filed a defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press following a 2018 news story that reported allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by Hulina Kuta. Kuta claimed that Wynn had raped her in the 1970s, leading her to give birth in a gas station restroom—a claim later proven false. She also alleged that Wynn had stolen valuable artworks, including Picasso’s Le Rêve, and bizarrely claimed she was the model for the painting, despite it being created a decade before her birth.

Wynn’s lawsuit argued that the AP should have recognized the implausibility of Kuta’s accusations and should have included more context to question her credibility. He contended that the AP’s failure to do so was tantamount to libel. However, the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case, citing Nevada’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statutes.

Understanding Anti-SLAPP Statutes

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals and media outlets from lawsuits intended to silence or intimidate them. These statutes safeguard the freedom of speech and ensure that public figures cannot easily use their power to suppress legitimate criticism or news coverage. In Wynn’s case, the Nevada Supreme Court highlighted that the AP’s story was published in good faith and served the public interest, as it addressed allegations of misconduct by a highly influential figure in Nevada’s gaming industry.

The seven-judge panel wrote that Wynn needed to provide “clear and convincing evidence” that the AP acted with actual malice when publishing the story. The court found no such evidence, instead ruling that the AP’s reporting was justified given the public’s right to be informed about allegations against a prominent industry leader.

Wynn’s Downfall and the Wider Implications

Steve Wynn’s reputation took a significant hit following a series of allegations reported by various media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal’s exposé, “Dozens of People Recount Pattern of Sexual Misconduct by Las Vegas Mogul Steve Wynn.” In response to the mounting accusations, Wynn resigned from his role at Wynn Resorts in 2018, a company he founded and transformed into one of the most recognizable brands in the global casino industry.

Earlier this year, Wynn agreed to pay $10 million to Nevada gaming regulators to settle a complaint alleging that his actions had damaged Nevada’s reputation and its gaming sector. The settlement, which was not an admission of guilt, also barred him from ever holding a position with any Nevada gaming company again.

The dismissal of Steve Wynn’s defamation case against the Associated Press serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role of anti-SLAPP laws in protecting journalistic freedom and public discourse. While Wynn continues to deny all allegations and has never faced criminal charges, the court’s ruling emphasizes that the media has a duty to inform the public about issues of significant interest, especially when they involve influential figures.

For Wynn, the decision marks the end of a legal battle but underscores the lasting impact of his alleged misconduct on his legacy. For the broader public, it reaffirms the importance of a free press in holding powerful individuals accountable, even when facing intense legal pressure.