Anti-Defamation League

=== 1990s ===
The ADL released a 1991 report observing an increase in the use of public access television stations by extremist groups. The report came in the wake of the trial of [[Tom Metzger]], a white supremacist leader found guilty of inciting a murder via his public access TV station.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Rosenkrantz |first1=H. Glenn |title=Hate Group Makes Hay On Public Access |url=https://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=2118 |work=American Journalism Review |issue=September 1991}}</ref>

San Francisco police searched two offices of the ADL in April 1993, suspecting it of having monitored thousands of activists; in the search, they confiscated police records including fingerprints and copies of confidential reports, according to court documents.<ref name=":22" /> The San Francisco district attorney considered indictments, but settled with the ADL in November 1993 in exchange for the ADL paying $75,000 for use fighting hate crimes.<ref name=":23" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Paddock |first=Richard C. |date=1993-11-16 |title=ADL to Avoid Prosecution in Spying Case |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-16-mn-57514-story.html |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref> During the investigation, a private investigator hired by the ADL, Roy H. Bullock, told police he had tracked [[White power skinhead|skinheads]], white supremacists, [[Arab Americans]] and critics of Israel. He confessed to trying to find “any sexual impropriety” on the late anti-apartheid activist [[Desmond Tutu]].<ref name="tn111"/> In court documents, state officials said that the ADL conspired to obtain the confidential police material, a felony in California, and that the ADL had violated state tax laws by paying Bullock through a lawyer.<ref name=":22" /> The court documents said ADL had a network of sympathetic police officers sharing data, and that investigators had questioned police about free sponsored trips to Israel they received from the ADL. The documents also mentioned that the ADL's spying operations were reported to the Israeli government and its intelligence agencies.<ref name="tn111"/> The ADL's Foxman contended that the ADL had a right to use the police information to combat antisemitism, and he argued in an interview that allegations that the ADL acted as an agent for Israel were "antisemitic".<ref name=":22">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/10/19/jewish-groups-tactics-investigated/96daef6a-a325-4a8a-ba09-da211fc1ba8a/ |last=McGee |first=Jim |title=JEWISH GROUP'S TACTICS INVESTIGATED |date=19 October 1993 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

News of the investigation led Arab Americans listed in the ADL's files to sue the ADL, contending invasion of privacy and the forwarding of confidential information to Israel and South Africa.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/10/19/jewish-groups-tactics-investigated/96daef6a-a325-4a8a-ba09-da211fc1ba8a/ |last=McGee |first=Jim |title=JEWISH GROUP'S TACTICS INVESTIGATED |date=19 October 1993 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>
In 1996, ADL settled the federal civil lawsuit filed by groups representing [[African Americans]] and [[Arab Americans]]. The ADL did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to a restraining injunction barring it from obtaining information from state employees who cannot legally disclose such information.<ref name=":21" /> The ADL agreed to contribute $25,000 to a fund that funds inter-community relationship projects, and cover the plaintiffs' legal costs of $175,000.<ref name=":21">{{Cite web|last=Weinstein|first=Henry|date=1996-09-04|title=Anti-Defamation League Settles Lawsuit by Civil Rights Groups|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-09-04-mn-40507-story.html|access-date=2023-03-11|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Tugend |first=Tom |title=ADL to Pay $200,000 to Settle Suit Alleging Spying Activities |url=https://www.jta.org/1996/09/06/archive/adl-to-pay-200000-to-settle-suit-alleging-spying-activities |work=JTA Daily News Bulletin |publisher=Jewish Telegraphic Agency |date=September 6, 1996 |access-date=January 28, 2019 |archive-date=January 28, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128140128/https://www.jta.org/1996/09/06/archive/adl-to-pay-200000-to-settle-suit-alleging-spying-activities |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1=David Singer |editor2=Ruth R. Seldin |title=American Jewish year book, 1998. Vol. 98 |date=1998 |publisher=American Jewish Committee |location=New York |pages=96–97 |isbn=0874951135 |url=http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1998_4_USCivicPolitical.pdf#PAGE=23 |access-date=March 24, 2021 |archive-date=July 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200721160851/http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1998_4_USCivicPolitical.pdf#PAGE=23 |url-status=live }}</ref> It settled with three remaining plaintiffs in 2002 for $178,000.<ref name=":23">{{Cite web |last=Goldsmith |first=Aleza |date=2002-02-26 |title=ADL settles privacy lawsuit |url=https://www.jta.org/2002/02/26/lifestyle/adl-settles-privacy-lawsuit |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=Jewish Telegraphic Agency |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 1994, ADL became embroiled in a dispute between neighbors in Denver, Colorado. One neighbor recorded private telephone conversations of the other on advice of the ADL after reporting antisemitic remarks to the ADL made by these neighbors heard via a police scanner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/13674/edition_id/264/format/html/displaystory.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060510144644/http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/13674/edition_id/264/format/html/displaystory.html|archive-date=May 10, 2006|title=Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation suit|website=Jewish News Weekly of Northern California|date=May 12, 2000|first=Chris|last=Leppek}}</ref> Neither the Aronsons nor ADL were aware that Congress had amended federal wiretap law which made it illegal to record conversations from a cordless telephone, to transcribe the material, and to use the transcriptions for any purpose. These recordings were used as basis for a federal civil lawsuit against the family, and ADL Regional Director Saul Rosenthal described the remarks as part of a "vicious antisemitic campaign". This led to the family being ridiculed and excluded in their community and to career damage.<ref>{{cite web|title=Quigley v. Rosenthall|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1360107.html|work=Findlaw|access-date=June 23, 2015|archive-date=June 23, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623150242/http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1360107.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lane|first1=George|title=Charges of bigotry backfire|url=http://extras.denverpost.com/news/news0429.htm|access-date=June 23, 2015|issue=April 29, 2000|newspaper=Denver Post|archive-date=June 23, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623145617/http://extras.denverpost.com/news/news0429.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> All charges against the couple were dropped in 2000 due to changes in federal wiretapping law making recording of cordless phone conversations illegal, a fact about which the ADL and the attorneys in the case were unaware. The jury awarded the couple $10 million in damages.<ref name=NYTdenver>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/13/us/privacy-rights-win-over-bias-charges-in-defamation-case.html | work=The New York Times | title=Privacy Rights Win Over Bias Charges In Defamation Case | date=May 13, 2000 | access-date=February 5, 2017 | archive-date=August 3, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170803104909/http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/13/us/privacy-rights-win-over-bias-charges-in-defamation-case.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

This was the first-ever verdict against the ADL. Only once before had the League been subject to a defamation trial, a case it won in 1984. Other cases were dismissed before reaching trial.<ref name=NYTdenver /> The ADL appealed the case to a superior court, which upheld the verdict, and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to take the case. The ADL paid the original $10 million plus interest in 2004.<ref>{{cite news |title=ADL Pays More Than $12 Million to Former Evergreen Couple |date=March 12, 2004 |newspaper=Rocky Mountain News |last=Abbott |first=Karen|url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2723185,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040316024351/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2723185,00.html|archive-date=March 16, 2004}}</ref>