Chad also advises clients about new media issues, including website terms of use, privacy policies, and subscription agreements; online forums (including issues relating to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act); copyright; linking; and email and online marketing.

Prior to attending law school, Chad worked as a news reporter for The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA), The Watertown Daily Times, and Wolfe Community Newspapers.

Notable Representations

Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2011). Chad and his LSKS colleagues successfully defended a CBS television station in an action alleging defamation and interference with contract claims arising from a news report on a developer’s “home give-away contest,” including his arrest on a charge of unlawful gambling. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the ruling that the plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure because he had voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront of the pre-existing controversy over the legality of the contest. The court further held that the plaintiff could not satisfy his burden to prove actual malice and that some of the challenged statements were substantially true.

Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, 2010 WL 3528649 (D. Conn. Sept. 3, 2010); Giovanniello v. New York Law Publ'g Co., 2007 WL 2244321 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2007). Chad successfully argued motions to dismiss class action claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in two jurisdictions against the publisher of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Hatfill v. The New York Times Co., 532 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2008). Chad and other LSKS attorneys successfully defended The New York Times in a defamation action brought by a prominent bio-defense expert named by the FBI as a “person of interest” in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax mailings. The scientist claimed the newspaper falsely implicated him in connection with the mailings. The trial court granted the newspaper’s motion for summary judgment and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure who failed to establish actual malice.