Do the cavemen have a legal basis to sue Geico for defamation?

Question

Can they win?

*Needless to say, please imagine the plaintiffs as real and not fictional, and do justify your response with relevant evidence and examples.

Consider this: What if the commercial instead says, it's so easy a black man can do it? Or it's so easy even gay guy can do it? Or it's so easy even a Iranian can do it? You get the point, just fill in the blanks.

Let me propose another, more realistic scenario. It is purely hypothetical. I apologize in advance for any group that I offend with my illustration, and I mean no disrespect.

Scenario: A group of Australian aborigines were brutalized by several white Australians. During the vicious attack, the offenders repeatedly called the victims "Geico cavemen." After the news of the attack came out, several other members of the Australian aboriginal community came forward to report being attack by white Australians calling their victims "Geico cavemen." Evidently, the hateful attacks have been occuring for quite some time, ever since Geico released its "So easy a caveman can do it" marketing campaign.

A group representing the victims has requested the Geico Corporation to end its "caveman" marketing campaign, claiming that the commercials are inspiring a rash of hateful attacks against the Australian aboriginal community. Geico rejected the request...

...claiming that the company is not legally liable for the attacks, and it is not compelled to pull its popular ads.

The question is: Can a group representing the victims of racist attacks in Australia sue, in a civil court if not a criminal court?

Do they have a legal basis to take Geico to court, if they argue that the company indirectly inspired and caused the vicious hate crimes against the Australian aboriginal community?

Answer 1

I hate that stupid commercial. They should stick with the Gecko....a lot funnier!

Answer 2

Depends on whether or not the claim that Geico makes, "easy enough for a caveman to use," defames cavemen, as a class.

what is the IQ of the average caveman?
can a caveman access Geico (by phone/mail/web)?

As the commercials don't state that cavemen are stupid, I don't believe that they are being defamed, so, while anyone can sue anyone for anything, I don't believe that they would have a case. And if they brought one, anyway, they wouldn't win it.

While unfortunate, the attacks on the aboriginal tribesmen in Australia can not (legally) be linked to the Geico ads. I'm sure that Geico didn't think about the aborigines when considering running the ads. I'm sure Geico is using "cavemen" precisely because there are no modern-day peoples that could be slighted by such references. That racists have decided that the aborigines are a reasonable facsimile for the cavemen, is not the fault of Geico, or its advertisers.

Answer 3

For defamation, you have to show damages. The cavemen need to show that GEICO's slogan ("so easy, a caveman could...") has actually hurt them in a material way. Hurt feelings don't count.

Given that the caveman don't appear to have any actual damages, no.

What's more, if the common perception of cavemen is that they are ignorant, then there is no defamation. True or not.

Answer 4

Probably not. They are being compensated by Geico for their appearance in those commercials, and thus have signed waivers, and releases for the use of their images. Also, they speak, which is to say they have lines, and so must be paid at least SAGs (screen actor's guild) minimum union scale which is probably a whole lot better than gathering nuts and berries.

Answer 5

Of course they could!
Obviously, if the cavemen can read and consult the appropriate kind of attorney, then they are just as competent as any greedy, litigous American.
In which case,...
oh wait,
can you have a case when an idea is being insinuated and not directly stated?
The answer lies in that distinction!

Answer 6

Unfortunately I heard,don't know if it is true that the cavemen are going to have a show (series) of their own.WOW! It's not like we have not had enough,but I think that is enough compensation for their so called defamation.Luckily on the television we have a choice of : " Do we watch,or do we not watch".Thank God for choices.

Answer 7

<> in simple terms because some thing it criminal does no longer advise it really is proper. <> there's a reason you could't spell 'assume' without '***'. those who assume too a lot finally end up making asses of themselves. <> would not make experience, does it - and yet, there you're advocating human beings basically assume the authorities is sweet! <> incorrect! <> ad hominem assaults harm your credibility. perhaps Marc, like me, would not see too a lot interior the way of credibility at the same time as interpreting your question. <> The time period "fetus" actually means "the more youthful interior the womb". The fetus IS a residing individual. life starts at idea, no longer start nor some arbitrary think about between. hence, each abortion constitutes the homicide of an unborn individual. <> notwithstanding the fetus IS human. hence, abortion IS homicide. <> what's so narrow minded about acknowledging the unborn for the residing people they're? because you're unable to attempt this, would not that advise your thoughts is in truth extra narrow than mine? <> That in simple terms is going for instance how schizophrenic human establishments will be - and also you pick to imagine one of those company (the authorities) is sweet.

Answer 8

Cavemen don't watch TV.

Answer 9

the geico commercials are funny and not funny, there just strange

Answer 10

I think so, you could act as their lawyer-watch those clubs they carry, though!