Jury Awards $550K to Oveissi in Defamation Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
This case grew from a fractured relationship between two Iranian American men living in Connecticut. Shahryar Oveissi, a businessman and philanthropist, claimed that Michael Benjamin, an entrepreneur and website developer, had defamed him through a series of online publications.
The men had first met in 2004, when Oveissi supported Benjamin’s campaign for political office. Years later, in 2021, Benjamin reconnected with Oveissi, seeking financial backing for a relaunch of his company, Interactive Media Awards (IMA). Oveissi declined to invest but offered to connect him with other possible backers.
Shortly after, Benjamin published an online report and websites alleging corruption by Oveissi and his late father, General Gholam Ali Oveissi, a former commander in the Shah of Iran’s army.
Cause
Oveissi filed suit alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claimed Benjamin acted maliciously after failing to secure investment, creating defamatory websites and reports that attacked his family’s integrity and damaged his business reputation.
Benjamin admitted he wrote the report but denied defamation. He argued that his work was investigative journalism tied to historical research on Iranian corruption, carried out in collaboration with an activist group called The Mahin Project.
Injury
Oveissi said the publications caused severe emotional distress. He feared for his family’s safety, alerted police, and installed security cameras at his home. He claimed the report’s allegations triggered childhood trauma from his father’s assassination in 1984.
Financially, he said potential investors withdrew millions of dollars in commitments from his new securities fund after reading Benjamin’s report.
Damages
Oveissi sought both injunctive reliefs to force removal of the websites and monetary damages for lost investment opportunities and reputational harm. He emphasized the collapse of a $9 million Middle Eastern investment deal as one direct result of Benjamin’s actions.
Benjamin denied liability and argued that Oveissi had not revoked his Facebook access, meaning he willingly left personal photos visible. Benjamin also claimed Oveissi had many chances to provide corrections before the report was published.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation unfolded quickly in 2023. Oveissi’s attorneys filed the complaint in March. Benjamin, representing himself, answered in July with denials and multiple special defenses.
He raised contributory negligence, contending Oveissi was partly to blame for the harm because he declined to engage with the report’s drafts. He also insisted his research was grounded in historical sources and U.S. news archives, and that he had extended invitations for Oveissi to respond before publication.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Shahryar Oveissi
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Joseph M. Pastore | Melissa Rose McClammy
Defendant: Michael Benjamin
· Counsel for Defendant: Michael Benjamin (self-represented, pro se)
Claims
Oveissi advanced five main claims:
Defamation: The report contained false and damaging statements.
False Light / Invasion of Privacy: Publishing family photos without permission cast him in a misleading light.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The campaign was designed to harm him emotionally.
Civil Conspiracy / Unfair Trade Practices: Benjamin allegedly used the Mahin Project as a front to hide his role.
Injunctive Relief: Oveissi sought permanent removal of the defamatory websites.
Defense
Michael Benjamin denied every claim. He admitted writing the report but insisted it was a truthful, well-researched document based on historical sources, news articles, and academic works. He argued it was part of a broader effort to expose corruption tied to the former Iranian regime, not a personal attack. Benjamin stressed that he had repeatedly invited Oveissi to respond before publication and that Oveissi ignored those opportunities. He also noted that Oveissi never restricted his Facebook access, which meant the photos were publicly available and not misused. Benjamin further argued that Oveissi had caused much of his own harm by refusing to engage and by rushing to court instead of correcting errors. He accused Oveissi of pursuing the lawsuit in bad faith, pointing to a failed complaint Oveissi had already brought before the World Intellectual Property Organization over the disputed domain names. In Benjamin’s view, the case was an attempt to silence him rather than a genuine claim for justice.
Jury Verdict
On July 11, 2025, the jury delivered its decision after weighing months of allegations, denials, and evidence. The panel sided with Plaintiff Shahryar Oveissi, finding that Michael Benjamin’s publications had crossed the line from commentary into defamation. Jurors agreed that the websites and the lengthy report were not protected expressions of opinion but deliberate falsehoods that injured Oveissi’s personal reputation, professional credibility, and emotional well-being.
As a result, the jury awarded $550,000 in compensation to Oveissi. The verdict sent a clear signal that online smear campaigns dressed as “investigative projects” would not escape accountability when they spread falsehoods about private citizens.