In it, the United States Supreme Court established the "actual malice" standard for press reports about public officials or public figures to be considered defamatory or libelous.

The malice standard requires the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove the publisher of the statement knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

The "actual malice" standard only applies when the statement is about a "public official", or a "public figure", or in some cases about a "matter of public interest".

Also, the "actual malice" standard is specifically part of United States law, derived from the U.S. Constitution.

Where the actual malice standard is subjective, requiring proof of what the defendant knew and believed, the negligence standard is objective, asking a jury to assess only what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.

In the United States, the malice standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil rights campaign.

The Court had in some past defamation cases declined to apply the actual malice standard, even though doing so would strengthen free-speech protections, she noted.

This decision had the impact of elaborating on the "actual malice" standard of the Court's prior holding in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, to also include cases involving false light.

The court rejected petitioners' argument that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964) must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress.

Consumers Union argued that in reinstating the suit, the Ninth Circuit had failed to apply this "actual malice" standard with sufficient rigor and had looked just at isolated facts, not the whole record.