A North Carolina federal judge granted Elsevier summary judgment in Global Plasma Solutions, Inc.’s case over a 2021 air-cleaning study, ending the company’s defamation and false-advertising claims.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell classified GPS as a limited-purpose public figure in the debate over bipolar ionization technology. That meant GPS had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Elsevier knew the study was false or recklessly disregarded its truth. Bell found the evidence did not meet that standard.
Bell left unresolved whether the study qualified for full First Amendment protection, calling that question close but unnecessary to decide. On the disputed volatile organic compound results, he said the reported amounts reflected averages of two indoor samples. He also faulted the paper for not explaining that calculation or making the underlying data available to readers.
Published online March 7, 2021, in Building and Environment, the study examined one in-duct bipolar ionization device. It reported little effect on particle levels, no observed ozone byproduct and increases in some volatile organic compounds. The authors said their laboratory and field experiments were limited in number and did not test whether the device could inactivate pathogens.
GPS also challenged Elsevier’s marketing of its journals as “peer reviewed” under the Lanham Act. Bell said all three reviewers gave the paper passing scores, but the editor disregarded one review as not meaningful and sent the paper back twice based on the other reviewers’ feedback. The editor, however, judged one review not meaningful and disregarded it. The court found insufficient evidence that a substantial share of the relevant audience was misled or that the advertising caused the business-value losses GPS claimed.
A 2024 magistrate judge’s report described GPS’s amended complaint as alleging losses exceeding $1.8 billion. Bell’s order referred to an alleged business-value decline of more than $1 billion. Neither amount was a finding by the court.
Retraction Watch reported Oct. 28 that GPS attorney Robert Muckenfuss said the company was evaluating the ruling and expected to appeal. The outlet also reported that Elsevier welcomed the decision, saying it upheld principles behind peer review.
