CNN is headed to court in a defamation suit from a Navy veteran, Zachary Young, who says the network “destroyed” his business after it suggested he improperly profited from helping people evacuate from Afghanistan.

The trial, which kicks off on Monday, stems from a news segment aired on CNN in November 2021 about private contractors helping people flee Afghanistan.

Journalist Jake Tapper introduced the clip as he told viewers, “CNN’s Alexander Marquardt has discovered Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”

The report only focused on one contractor — Mr. Young. During the segment, the Navy veteran’s face was shown on a graphic that included references to “black markets” and “exorbitant fees.” The graphic also noted his company was asking for $75,000 to transport passengers to Pakistan or $14,500 to transport them to the United Arab Emirates.

In the clip, the CNN reporter said those fees are “well beyond the reach of most Afghans.” Mr. Young told Mr. Marquardt in a text message that “Afghans trying to leave are expected to have a sponsor pay for them,” and evacuation costs are “highly volatile and based on environmental realities.”

In March 2022, anchor Pamela Brown issued an on-air apology for the segment.

“In November, we ran a story about Afghans desperate to flee the country who faced paying high sums beyond the reach of average Afghans. The story included a lead-in and banner throughout the story that referenced a ‘black market.’ The use of the term ‘black market’ in the story was an error. The story included reporting on Zachary Young,” Ms. Brown said. “We did not intend to suggest that Mr. Young participated in the black market. We regret the error, and to Mr. Young, we apologize.”

In June 2022, Mr. Young sued the network as he said the original segment, which was re-aired three times and posted on the network’s website, “destroyed his reputation and business” by labeling him an “illegal profiteer” who preyed upon “desperate Afghans.”

Ahead of the trial in the 14th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, the judge overseeing the case, William Henry, granted Mr. Young a series of wins. He ruled that Mr. Young “did not act illegally or criminally.”

He also said that the on-air apology from CNN was not sufficient under Florida law, pointing out that the “correction was not made during the other television shows in which the segment aired… no retraction, correction or any apology was posted on any online article or with any social media posting.”

It is not common for defamation lawsuits against media companies to actually make it to trial. Such cases are often settled or dismissed before they get to the trial phase, or dismissed by judges via summary judgement. 

CNN could be on the hook for a significant monetary judgment against it if the jury finds that it defamed Mr. Young. In December, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle President-elect Trump’s defamation lawsuit against it. Meanwhile, Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News also agreed to settle defamation cases in recent years involving incorrect reporting about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

A loss for CNN would only add to the network’s financial woes as it suffered a roughly 45 percent drop in its primetime viewership, dropping to 405,000 viewers, after the 2024 election. The network is expected to make sharp budget cuts and implement layoffs amid the ratings plunge. 

However, CNN is confident it can win the trial. In a statement to The New York Sun, a network spokesman said, “When all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor.”

For Mr. Young’s attorneys to win the case, they will have to convince jurors that the network wanted to harm their client and that its employees knew the information in the segment was false. Their case could be bolstered by internal communications disclosed in the discovery process that showed CNN staffers calling the story “flawed,” “full of holes,” and “incomplete.”

The network maintains its journalists believed the information they reported was accurate, and have shared communications from staffers who called Mr. Young “shady as hell.”