A Riddle Whose Answer is ‘Tort’: A Reassessment of I nternational N ews S ervice v A ssociated P ress

The decision of the US S upreme C ourt in I nternational N ews S ervice v A ssociated P ress (1918) has variously been interpreted as recognising a ‘quasi‐property’ right in ‘valuable intangibles’, such as hot news; as turning on unjust enrichment; or as creating a novel tort of unfair competition by misappropriation. It is suggested that the case is more authentically understood as an incidental result of a process by which the S upreme C ourt extended the boundaries of tort liability, and the corresponding scope of property protection, in a series of decisions against organised labour. The argument is pursued with reference to the prima facie tort theory of O liver W endell H olmes, the A merican ‘labour injunction’, and the labour law record of the author of the majority opinion in I nternational N ews , J ustice M ahlon P itney.