Israeli Court Rules Media Outlet Vicariously Liable for Reporter's Illegal Actions

A controversial ruling by the Central District Court has determined that Galei Tzahal (Army Radio) must pay NIS 450,000 in damages to Efi Naveh, the former head of the Israel Bar Association. The case stemmed from the hacking of Naveh's phones, which led to the "sex for appointments" scandal. Deputy President Oren Schwartz found that reporter Hadas Steif was responsible for the phone breach, which he suggested had criminal undertones, and thus liable for the severe invasion of Naveh's privacy.

While Naveh had sought NIS 7 million, Schwartz awarded NIS 450,000 against Steif. Crucially, he then imposed vicarious liability on Galei Tzahal, meaning the state will bear the cost of the compensation. Schwartz based his decision on Israeli tort law, which holds employers responsible for their employees' actions if committed within the scope of employment, even if the employee acted improperly.

Schwartz acknowledged that Steif's actions had a criminal aspect and were not the primary motive but rather an incidental outcome of her journalistic work for Galei Tzahal. He noted that Steif had received immunity from prosecution, which supported holding the radio station liable, even though station officials were unaware that the information originated from an illegal phone hack. The judge reasoned that holding the state responsible in such unique cases supports a strong and free investigative press, arguing that leaving investigative journalists without employer backing could severely harm investigative journalism.

He stated that extending protection to investigative journalists, even when they err, aligns with the public interest in preserving press freedom, citing a previous ruling by Judge Yitzhak Amit on reporter's privilege. However, the article critiques this ruling, questioning whether press freedom should extend to criminal activity and warning that it could provide a "blank check" for journalists to break the law, knowing their employer will cover the financial consequences. The author suggests that media outlets should not be liable for a journalist's criminal acts unless they explicitly approved them beforehand or knew about them afterward, proposing that clear guidelines on permissible and prohibited conduct be established.