Public relations (PR) plays a crucial role in shaping the narrative surrounding litigation, influencing public perception, and often determining the outcome of high-profile cases. In the modern world, where information travels rapidly through media channels, the stakes in litigation PR are higher than ever before. When done right, litigation PR can help maintain or rebuild a brand’s reputation, sway public opinion, and assist in managing the court of public opinion while legal battles unfold. However, when handled poorly, litigation PR can escalate conflicts, alienate key stakeholders, and severely damage a company’s reputation.
In this op-ed, we explore the consequences of failed litigation PR, using real-world examples of public relations disasters during legal battles. Through these case studies, we aim to understand what went wrong, how these mistakes were made, and what companies and their PR teams can learn from them.
1. The Case of BP and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Perhaps one of the most infamous examples of failed litigation PR is the aftermath of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. The spill, which resulted in the deaths of 11 workers and the release of millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, quickly became one of the most high-profile environmental disasters in history. BP’s PR missteps during the litigation phase of this crisis were almost as damaging as the spill itself.
The PR Missteps
BP’s initial response to the disaster was to downplay its seriousness. In the days following the explosion, BP CEO Tony Hayward appeared to minimize the severity of the situation, famously stating, “The environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest.” This tone-deaf remark sent a signal to the public that BP was not taking the crisis seriously and was out of touch with the magnitude of the disaster.
Further compounding BP’s PR issues was its decision to focus too heavily on legal defense and minimizing liability instead of empathizing with the affected communities and families. BP’s PR strategy failed to connect with the human cost of the disaster, resulting in growing public outrage. The company also created a sense of distrust by making the public feel as though BP was trying to “hide” the full extent of the damage.
As the legal proceedings unfolded, BP’s focus remained on managing the legal aspects, and the company faced intense scrutiny for its attempts to avoid financial responsibility for the cleanup. It did not actively counter the growing narrative of negligence, and its PR response seemed disjointed and reactive rather than proactive.
What Went Wrong
BP’s failure in litigation PR stems from a lack of transparency and empathy. By downplaying the disaster, BP misread the public’s emotional response, making a huge blunder in the court of public opinion. Additionally, BP’s PR strategy appeared disconnected from the legal strategy, giving the impression that the company cared more about its bottom line than the affected communities.
When dealing with a crisis of this magnitude, a key component of litigation PR is acknowledging the scope of the issue, expressing empathy for those affected, and creating a narrative that positions the company as responsible and determined to make things right. BP missed this opportunity, which led to its tarnished reputation and multi-billion-dollar costs in fines, settlements, and cleanup operations.
Lessons Learned
- Acknowledge the crisis early: In the face of litigation, it’s crucial to accept responsibility early, show empathy, and take visible steps to resolve the situation. This helps mitigate the reputational damage before it snowballs.
- Transparency is key: Whether you’re dealing with a legal crisis or a corporate misstep, hiding or downplaying the situation only worsens the problem. Transparency builds trust.
- Align PR with legal strategy: Litigation PR should support the legal team’s goals while making sure that the messaging aligns with public expectations and sentiments.
2. The Case of United Airlines and Dr. David Dao’s Removal Incident
In April 2017, United Airlines made global headlines when Dr. David Dao, a passenger on one of their flights, was forcibly removed from an overbooked plane in a violent encounter that was caught on video. The footage quickly went viral, sparking outrage online and in the media. In the weeks that followed, United Airlines found itself at the center of an international public relations nightmare.
The PR Missteps
United Airlines’ initial response to the incident was woefully inadequate. Rather than addressing the situation head-on, the company initially focused on defending its policies and blaming the situation on the passenger, claiming that Dr. Dao had been “disruptive.” This misstep angered the public, as it appeared United was prioritizing its own interests over the rights and safety of its passengers.
United CEO Oscar Munoz’s first public statement referred to the incident as “re-accommodating” passengers and blamed the situation on the passenger’s behavior, which was interpreted as an attempt to avoid responsibility. This tone-deaf comment amplified public outrage and deepened the negative perception of the airline.
It wasn’t until after a significant backlash, including widespread social media criticism, that Munoz publicly apologized and admitted that United had mishandled the situation. However, by then, the damage was done. Public sentiment had already shifted dramatically, and United’s PR team had failed to proactively manage the story, resulting in a damaged reputation.
What Went Wrong
United Airlines’ PR strategy initially failed to show empathy, reflect accountability, or align its messaging with the gravity of the situation. The company’s defensive and tone-deaf response only fanned the flames of public anger. Furthermore, United’s delay in issuing a meaningful apology and offering a clear solution made it appear as though the company was indifferent to its customers’ well-being.
In litigation PR, swift action and a well-crafted message can help mitigate the fallout from negative events. United Airlines’ delay in offering a sincere apology and taking responsibility for its actions was a fatal misstep. When the company finally did take action, it was seen as a reaction to public pressure, rather than a genuine acknowledgment of its mistake.
Lessons Learned
- Address the issue immediately: When faced with a public relations crisis, particularly during litigation, it’s vital to respond quickly with a clear and honest statement.
- Apologize sincerely: A genuine apology demonstrates accountability. It’s crucial to acknowledge the harm done and show that you are working to prevent similar incidents in the future.
- Align your PR with your legal response: While managing legal risks is important, your PR strategy should not be at odds with your legal approach. Focus on repairing relationships and showing responsibility.
3. The Case of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes
Theranos, once a Silicon Valley darling, quickly became the poster child for corporate deception and failed litigation PR. The company, led by founder Elizabeth Holmes, claimed to revolutionize blood testing with a device that could quickly and cheaply perform a wide range of tests. However, as investigations revealed, the technology was fraudulent, and the company had misled investors, patients, and regulators.
The PR Missteps
Theranos’ PR strategy was initially successful, allowing the company to raise millions of dollars and garner support from prominent investors and celebrities. However, when the company’s technology was exposed as a sham, its PR efforts collapsed. Instead of acknowledging the problem and managing the crisis, Holmes and her PR team engaged in aggressive deflection. They attempted to suppress negative news by threatening journalists, including John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal, who was investigating the company.
Theranos’ PR team was involved in an extensive campaign to defend the company against allegations, attempting to discredit critics and portray the company as a misunderstood innovator. Rather than pivoting to damage control, the company’s PR strategy fueled the narrative of deception, leading to criminal charges for Holmes and former Theranos president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.
What Went Wrong
The failure of Theranos’ litigation PR lies in the company’s insistence on denial and defensive strategies. By trying to suppress negative media and discredit whistleblowers, Theranos alienated key stakeholders, including investors, regulators, and the press. It is one thing to maintain a strong legal defense; it’s another to prioritize secrecy and denial over transparency and accountability.
Additionally, Holmes’ public image as a “female tech visionary” was closely tied to the brand, making the eventual revelations about the company’s fraudulent practices all the more damaging. By failing to recalibrate its PR strategy to fit the unfolding legal reality, Theranos ultimately ended up with criminal charges and a shattered reputation.
Lessons Learned
- Don’t try to hide the truth: When facing litigation or a crisis, transparency is crucial. Attempting to suppress negative news will only escalate the problem.
- Align your PR with the evolving legal situation: PR must evolve in line with the legal developments. Denial may seem like a short-term fix, but it will only prolong and intensify the eventual consequences.
- Rebuild trust after a scandal: Once your credibility is damaged, regaining public trust is a long and difficult process. It requires genuine accountability, a commitment to correcting past mistakes, and actions that demonstrate change.
4. The Case of Volkswagen’s Dieselgate Scandal
Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate” scandal in 2015 revealed that the company had intentionally manipulated emission tests in its diesel-powered cars to pass regulatory standards. The revelations rocked the automotive industry and triggered one of the largest corporate scandals in history.
The PR Missteps
Volkswagen’s PR response to the Dieselgate scandal was initially defensive and dismissive. Rather than addressing the issue head-on, the company downplayed the extent of the deception. CEO Martin Winterkorn initially denied knowledge of the scandal and remained silent on the company’s responsibility.
Only after intense pressure did Volkswagen admit to its wrongdoing. The company launched an expensive PR campaign to rebuild its reputation, but the damage was already done. The public viewed Volkswagen as dishonest, and the brand never fully recovered from the scandal.
What Went Wrong
Volkswagen’s failure in litigation PR occurred because the company delayed admitting responsibility and underestimated the seriousness of the situation. By initially denying the accusations and blaming lower-level employees, the company eroded public trust. The PR campaign that followed was seen as a mere attempt to mitigate financial and legal fallout, rather than a sincere effort to restore the company’s integrity.
Lessons Learned
- Take responsibility immediately: In cases of corporate fraud or negligence, it is crucial to take responsibility as soon as the truth emerges.
- Prepare for long-term damage control: The effects of a major scandal like Dieselgate can last for years. Be prepared to engage in long-term strategies for rebuilding trust with customers and stakeholders.
These case studies demonstrate the importance of well-executed litigation PR. A company’s approach to managing its public image during legal battles can either make or break its future. Whether you’re dealing with environmental disasters, customer safety issues, or corporate fraud, the key to successful litigation PR lies in transparency, empathy, and a well-aligned strategy that reflects the truth of the situation.
Companies should remember that PR isn’t just about protecting their brand—it’s about managing a crisis with honesty, integrity, and accountability. When handled poorly, the consequences of failed litigation PR can be disastrous. But with a thoughtful and well-executed strategy, businesses can navigate even the most challenging legal situations and emerge stronger in the eyes of the public.
