Legal Protections

Cherry Pear Moody's investigations constitute protected speech and press activities under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The publication of truthful, factual information on matters of public concern — including regulatory compliance, public safety, and consumer protection — is among the most strongly protected categories of expression under American law.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the press has a fundamental right to publish truthful information obtained lawfully, particularly when it pertains to matters of public concern. Cherry Pear Moody's investigative dossiers report on factual findings derived entirely from publicly accessible sources.

Key precedents supporting this work:

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) — Established the "actual malice" standard, requiring public figures to prove a publisher acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Investigative journalism on matters of public concern receives the highest protection.
• Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) — The First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information about matters of public concern, so long as the publisher did not participate in the initial unlawful acquisition of the information.
• Near v. Minnesota (1931) — Prior restraint — any attempt to prevent publication before it occurs — is presumptively unconstitutional and carries "a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."
• Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) — Where a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, the government may not constitutionally punish its publication absent a need of the highest order.

Any attempt to restrain, censor, or suppress these publications would constitute a prior restraint — the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. Courts have near-unanimously rejected prior restraints on journalistic publication for over a century.

Defamation claims are the most common legal threat directed at investigative journalists. Cherry Pear Moody's publications are structured to be legally defensible at every level of defamation analysis.

Truth is an absolute defense. Every factual claim in a published investigation is sourced, cited, and documented with publicly accessible evidence. Under American law, truth — or substantial truth — is a complete and absolute defense to any defamation claim.

The actual malice standard applies. Entities operating in the commercial marketplace — particularly those engaged in regulated industries such as ENDS distribution — are, at minimum, limited-purpose public figures with respect to their commercial activities. Under New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, such plaintiffs must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the publisher acted with "actual malice" — meaning knowledge that a statement was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false. Cherry Pear Moody's methodology — which includes multi-source verification, conservative interpretation of ambiguous data, and legal review prior to publication — is fundamentally inconsistent with a finding of actual malice.

Additional defenses applicable to this work:

• Substantial truth doctrine — A statement need not be perfectly accurate in every detail to be legally protected. If the "gist" or "sting" of the statement is substantially true, the defense applies.
• Fair report privilege — Published reports that accurately summarize information from government filings, regulatory databases, and official records are protected by the fair report privilege.
• Opinion privilege — Where reports draw analytical conclusions or commentary based on disclosed facts, such statements are protected as opinion. Readers are provided with the underlying factual basis and can draw their own conclusions.
• Neutral reportage — Where publications accurately report the content of official government records, regulatory actions, or public filings, additional protection attaches under the neutral reportage doctrine.

Cherry Pear Moody qualifies for journalist privilege protections under applicable federal and state Shield Laws. These laws protect journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources, unpublished materials, or newsgathering processes.

Federal qualified privilege. While no comprehensive federal shield law currently exists, the federal courts have recognized a qualified journalist's privilege rooted in the First Amendment, following the framework established in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). The majority of federal circuits apply a balancing test that weighs the need for disclosure against the chilling effect on news gathering, with a strong presumption in favor of protecting journalistic sources and materials.

State shield law protections. As of 2025, approximately 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutory or common-law shield protections for journalists. These protections vary in scope but generally provide robust protection for:

• The identity of confidential sources and tipsters
• Unpublished notes, drafts, and research materials
• The journalist's newsgathering process and methodology
• Communications between the journalist and their sources
• Work product and editorial deliberations

Digital journalism coverage. Modern shield law protections extend to independent journalists, online publishers, and non-traditional media. Courts have increasingly recognized that First Amendment press protections are not limited to legacy news organizations. Independent investigative publications that engage in news gathering, verification, and public dissemination of information on matters of public concern — precisely this publication's operations — qualify for protection regardless of organizational structure.

Any subpoena or legal process seeking to compel disclosure of protected materials will be challenged under applicable federal and state Shield Law provisions and the constitutional privilege.

Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes provide a procedural mechanism for the early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed to silence protected speech, with mandatory fee-shifting against the filer.

Investigative journalism on matters of public concern — such as regulatory compliance, public safety, and illicit commercial activity — is precisely the type of protected activity that Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to defend.

How Anti-SLAPP works:

Most Anti-SLAPP statutes follow a two-prong analysis:

• Prong 1 — Protected activity: The defendant demonstrates that the challenged statements arise from constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern. Investigative journalism qualifies categorically.
• Prong 2 — Probability of prevailing: The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, the case is dismissed at the outset.

Consequences of filing a SLAPP suit against this publication:

• Early dismissal — The lawsuit can be struck at the earliest possible stage, before the costs of full litigation are imposed.
• Mandatory fee-shifting — The filer of a dismissed SLAPP suit is required to pay the defendant's attorney fees and costs. This can be substantial.
• Discovery stay — In many jurisdictions, discovery is automatically stayed upon the filing of an Anti-SLAPP motion, preventing the lawsuit from being used as a fishing expedition for sources, methods, or unpublished materials.
• Jurisdictional breadth — As of 2025, over 30 states have enacted Anti-SLAPP statutes. Several of these — including California, Texas, Oregon, and Washington — have particularly strong provisions with broad definitions of protected activity and robust fee-shifting mechanisms.

Where Cherry Pear Moody reproduces copyrighted material in published investigations — such as screenshots of product listings, company websites, marketing materials, or social media posts — such reproduction constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

The four-factor fair use analysis strongly favors this use:

• Purpose and character of the use — Non-commercial, transformative, investigative journalism and critical commentary. The reproduction serves an entirely different purpose from the original — documenting regulatory violations rather than promoting commercial products. Transformative use weighs heavily in favor of fair use under Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994).
• Nature of the copyrighted work — Factual, commercial material including product listings, marketing copy, corporate filings, and promotional imagery. Factual works receive less copyright protection than creative works.
• Amount and substantiality used — Limited to what is necessary to document the factual finding. Screenshots and reproductions are used to provide evidence supporting specific investigative claims — not to republish entire works.
• Effect on the market — No substitution effect whatsoever. The investigation does not replace or compete with the original work's market. If anything, the investigation exposes that certain products should not be on the market at all due to regulatory non-compliance.

Additionally, the use of corporate names, logos, and trademarks in published investigations constitutes nominative fair use — the marks are used solely to identify the entities being discussed, which is a well-established fair use of trademarks under New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing (1992).

All intelligence used in Cherry Pear Moody investigations is derived exclusively from publicly available sources through lawful means. The investigation methodology is designed to ensure full compliance with federal and state laws governing information access and acquisition.

No CFAA exposure. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) prohibits unauthorized access to protected computer systems. Cherry Pear Moody does not access any system without authorization. All information is obtained from sources that are publicly accessible — government databases, public corporate filings, open websites, published regulatory records, and similar open-source materials. There is no hacking, no circumvention of access controls, and no unauthorized system access of any kind.

No Wiretap Act issues. Cherry Pear Moody does not intercept electronic communications in transit. All information is already published or publicly filed at the time of collection.

No Stored Communications Act concerns. Cherry Pear Moody does not access stored electronic communications through unauthorized means. Information is collected from public-facing sources, not from private accounts, private servers, or through social engineering of service providers.

Sources used in investigations include:

• Federal and state government databases (FDA, TTB, CBP, state SOS offices)
• Corporate filings, UCC records, and registered agent information
• USPTO trademark and patent records
• WHOIS records and DNS infrastructure data
• Public-facing websites, social media profiles, and online marketplace listings
• Web archives and cached content
• Court records and litigation filings
• Import/export data and shipping records
• Published advertising and marketing materials

Every piece of evidence in a published report can be independently verified by the reader using the same publicly accessible sources documented in the investigation.

Cherry Pear Moody maintains rigorous evidence preservation practices designed to ensure the integrity, authenticity, and provenance of all investigative materials.

Evidence integrity measures:

• Timestamped capture — All evidence is captured with metadata recording the date, time, and retrieval method.
• Archival preservation — Source materials are archived to prevent dead-link degradation and ensure permanent availability regardless of whether the original source is later modified or removed.
• Chain of provenance — Each piece of evidence includes documentation of its retrieval path — source URL, database reference, filing number, or other identifying information — sufficient to allow independent verification.
• Redundant storage — Evidence is stored with redundancy to prevent loss due to technical failure.

These practices are consistent with the authentication standards for digital evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 901) and ensure that published findings can withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

Subjects of investigations should be aware: If a subject removes, modifies, or destroys online evidence after becoming aware of an investigation, the original materials have already been archived. Altering public-facing information does not alter the published record — it may, however, constitute additional evidence of consciousness of guilt or spoliation.

Cherry Pear Moody's primary obligation is to the public interest and to the integrity of the journalistic process. The publication's stance on cooperation with law enforcement is guided by the following principles:

Published reports are public. All published investigative dossiers are freely available on this website. Any law enforcement agency, regulatory body, or legislative office may access, reference, and use published reports without restriction. Published findings are routinely submitted to relevant federal and state agencies upon publication as a matter of standard practice.

Unpublished materials and sources are protected. Unpublished notes, research materials, draft reports, editorial deliberations, and source identities are protected under applicable Shield Law provisions and the constitutional journalist's privilege. These materials will not be voluntarily disclosed to law enforcement, government agencies, or any third party.

Compelled process will be challenged. Any subpoena, court order, or other legal process seeking to compel disclosure of protected materials — including source identities, unpublished research, or editorial communications — will be challenged through all available legal channels, including Shield Law protections, the First Amendment privilege, and applicable procedural defenses.

If you are a subject of a published investigation, you should be aware of the following:

• All published findings are based on publicly accessible information and are protected under the First Amendment, fair use doctrine, and applicable state and federal law.
• Retaliatory legal action will be met with Anti-SLAPP motions, constitutional defenses, and vigorous litigation. Fee-shifting provisions may require you to pay the defendant's legal costs.
• Threats of legal action will be documented, may be published, and may be submitted to relevant regulatory agencies as evidence of attempted suppression of protected journalism.
• Published reports are permanent. They are not removed, retracted, or suppressed in response to demands, threats, or settlement offers. If a report is factually accurate, it stands.
• Attempting to suppress a published investigation often draws significantly more public attention to its findings than the original publication.

What you can do:

• Submit a correction — If the report contains a factual error, submit a correction request with supporting documentation through the Contact page. Legitimate corrections are published promptly.
• Demonstrate compliance — If you have since achieved regulatory compliance, submit verifiable documentation and a compliance update may be appended to the report.
• Seek legal counsel — If you choose to pursue legal action, consult with an attorney who is experienced in First Amendment and media law. They will advise you on the legal protections that apply to this work.

Cherry Pear Moody is committed to accuracy. If you believe a published report contains a factual error, you are invited to submit a correction request through the Contact page.

Correction requests should include:

• Specific identification of the claimed factual error (including the exact text and the report in which it appears)
• The correct information, with verifiable supporting documentation
• Your relationship to the subject matter (optional but helpful)
• Your contact information for follow-up (optional)

All legitimate correction requests will be reviewed promptly — typically within 7 business days of receipt. If a correction is warranted, it will be published with a dated notice in the affected report. Both the original text and the corrected text are preserved for transparency.

What does not qualify as a correctable error:

• Disagreement with editorial conclusions — If the underlying facts are accurate but you disagree with the analytical conclusions drawn from them, that is an editorial disagreement, not a factual error.
• Requests to remove accurate information — Truthful, accurately reported information is not correctable regardless of whether the subject finds it inconvenient or unflattering.
• Claims without supporting documentation — Bare assertions that information is "wrong" without verifiable evidence to support the claim are not actionable correction requests.
• Legal threats disguised as corrections — Demands for correction or removal that are accompanied by threats of legal action will be treated as legal threats, not correction requests, and handled accordingly.