I understand that if somebody posts false information about an individual and if it can be proved that individual had intent to cause malice against the other individual, then that can be brought to court. Out of curiosity, does this also apply to
The thing about these laws is that you can bring someone to court if the information presented was false, but my real question is what if the information is incomplete?
This is the best example I could make:
For example, suppose a movie company releases a list of movies that came out in its latest fiscal year in order to tempt investors to buy its stock. However, a person releases posts stating that some of the movies came out couple of years before and makes this information public to try and scare investors from purchasing this companies' stock (basically if the company released movies in 2006 and the guy is pointing out that some movies on the list were released in 2003). HOWEVER, the company clearly has, in bold letters, on the list a statement which says that many of the movies were released years ago, but are on the new list because it also includes DVD releases.
Would this hold any validation in court? Would you have to prove that the person knew about the statement but still lied about the information to cause harm against the movie company?
Sorry if this isn't the type of question accepted on here; I am currently studying US Government and this question came to my mind.