fraud consumer-protection
Can intentionally providing climate change disinformation known to be false be construed as fraud?
<p>Can intentionally providing climate change disinformation known to the provider to be false be construed as fraud? Initially I was thinking that this might be consumer fraud by tiny little news outlets. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Can intentionally providing climate change disinformation known to the provider to be false be construed as fraud?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. That is insufficient for a finding of fraud. </p>

<p>One of the <em>prima facie</em> elements of fraud is that the consumer of provider's information incur losses (aka <em>consequent damage</em>) as a result of that misrepresentation. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwaco20120329d98" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Elcon Const. v. Eastern Washington Univ.</em>, 273 P.3d 965, 970 (2012)</a>.</p>

<p>Even if the consumer incurs losses, he might be unable to prove another element: that of reasonable "<em>reliance on the truth of the representation</em>". The consumer would have a hard time persuading that he had a good reason to rely on that provider on an issue that is highly controversial, and on which the provider cannot be expected to have the last word.</p>
