Judge tosses UnitedHealth’s defamation lawsuit against the Guardian

UnitedHealth’s defamation lawsuit against the Guardian, a nonprofit news outlet in the U.K., has been tossed by a U.S. district court judge in Delaware who reviewed the case Monday.

In its complaint, UnitedHealth had accused reporters at the Guardian of six counts of defamation, stemming from a May 2025 story that detailed how the healthcare company's insurance arm paid incentives to long-term patient care facilities to reduce hospital transfers, resulting in at least one serious brain injury.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., threw out all six of the defamation claims, writing in his ruling that the company had resorted to cherry picking and twisting aspects of the Guardian’s report to make it appear to claim things that weren’t actually in there.

Further, Scott agreed with the defense that the outlet was within its rights to characterize the incentive payments as “secret” and made “quietly,” claims that UnitedHealthcare took issue with. The judge found that, based on the reporting and evidence, the Guardian had an affirmative defense against defamation because its reporting was “substantially true” enough to have an affirmative defense against defamation. 

The court noted that the bar to prove defamation claims against a large company like UnitedHealth would require that facts in a report be knowingly false and have damaged the company.

Breaking down specific patient cases mentioned in the report, UnitedHealth said the Guardian had omitted facts, including that one of the insurer’s employees had repeatedly insisted that a patient be hospitalized. However, Scott pointed out, the omission would not ultimately change the content of the reporting.

“Even drawing all reasonable inferences in United’s favor, if the truth was written in the article as it is alleged in the complaint, it would not have a different effect on the average reader,” he said.

“The complaint does not allege that these statements are false, only that the omissions regarding United-employee involvement created a false impression,” Scott added. "The Guardian U.S., however, is not required to publish facts just because United would have preferred more favorable facts.”