In the late 1980s, Engelbert Humperdinck found himself at the center of a scandal that could have destroyed his career. Kathy Jetter, a woman who had previously sued him for paternity of her child, made a shocking claim in court: she believed Engelbert had the AIDS virus.
The story exploded when National Enquirer, known for its tabloid style, splashed the headline:
“Mother of His Child Claims in Court… Engelbert Has AIDS Virus!”
The claim was entirely unfounded. Engelbert was not HIV positive, and there was no medical evidence to support Kathy Jetter’s statement. Yet, the damage was done. The public, misled by the headline, began speculating. Engelbert decided to sue National Enquirer for defamation, expecting a clear victory.
But what followed stunned not only Engelbert but also many legal experts. He lost the lawsuit.
⚖️ Why He Lost the Case:
-
Public figures must prove “actual malice”:
Engelbert had to show not just that the story was false—but that Enquirer knew it was false and published it anyway, with malicious intent. -
The court protected the Enquirer under free speech rights:
Because the statement came from a court filing (even without medical proof), the tabloid argued it was reporting on a matter of public record. -
Lack of provable damages:
Engelbert couldn’t demonstrate measurable harm—financial or reputational—that resulted directly from the story.
Despite the emotional and professional toll, Engelbert was not legally vindicated. The case became a notorious example of how tabloids can publish damaging, false stories about celebrities—and still walk away protected by the First Amendment.