S&P said in February 2013 that the Justice Department suit was without factual or legal merit, and it had argued in investor cases that its ratings were opinions protected as free speech.

Why this label

Reuters recorded S&P's denial and its past reliance on the free speech clause in investor suits^S5. In July 2013 Judge David O. Carter denied S&P's motion to dismiss, the Daily Journal reported^S7. That ruling only let the case proceed. In 2015 S&P accepted an agreed statement of facts and paid US$1.375 billion^S1, but the settlement contains no findings of violations of law^S2. No court decided whether the ratings were fraudulent or protected opinion. The factual denial sits uneasily with the admitted facts, but the legal merit was never tested, so the record does not permit a firm conclusion.

Current procedural position

Motion to dismiss denied on 16 July 2013^S7. Case settled on 3 February 2015 without a judgment on the merits^S1S2.

Evidence score: 63 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of S&P Global Ratings. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

Timeline

1. 6 February 2013S&P calls the suit entirely without factual or legal merit^S5
2. 16 July 2013Court denies S&P's motion to dismiss, the Daily Journal reports^S7
3. 3 February 2015Settlement with agreed facts and no findings of violations of law^S1S2

Related cases

• United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLCUS District Court for the Central District of California. Civil. Not published.Stage: Settled on 3 February 2015 together with claims by 19 states and the District of Columbia.
  • 16 July 2013 Motion to dismiss denied by Judge David O. Carter, as reported by the Daily Journal^S7
  • 3 February 2015 Settlement of US$1.375 billion with agreed statement of facts^S1

Revision history

• 25 October 2026 Assessment first published with label Unresolved.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

1. S2Tier B McGraw Hill Financial And S&P Ratings Reach Settlements With DOJ, Attorneys General Of 19 States And District Of Columbia And With CalPERSMcGraw Hill Financial. Company statement. 3 February 2015.Company statement giving the payments, including US$125 million to CalPERS, and saying there were no findings of violations of law. It is the company's own account.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
2. S1Tier A Justice Department and State Partners Secure $1.375 Billion Settlement with S&P for Defrauding Investors in the Lead Up to the Financial CrisisUS Department of Justice. Government press release. 3 February 2015.Supports the amount, the split, the agreed facts and the retraction of the retaliation claim. It does not state that S&P admitted a violation of law.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
3. S7Tier C Judge denies Standard & Poor's bid to dismiss $5 billion civil suitDaily Journal. Press report. 19 July 2013.Report by Henry Meier on the denial of the motion to dismiss late on Tuesday 16 July 2013. The reasoning is behind a paywall and the order itself was not read.
4. S5Tier C US launches civil action against S&P over pre-crisis ratingsReuters, republished by Daily FT. Press report. 6 February 2013.Reuters wire copy with no individual byline. Supports S&P's denial and its past free speech argument as paraphrased by Reuters.Link working, checked 25 October 2026

Other claims about S&P Global Ratings

• Partly supported83
  A senior Justice Department official said in February 2015 that S&P had admitted facts that make clear its own unlawful role in the financial crisis.
  Regulator statement, 3 February 20154 records citedFraud
• Outdated82
  Lawyers for S&P argued in 2013 that the Justice Department suit was retaliation for the August 2011 downgrade of the United States credit rating.
  Press report, 4 September 20132 records citedCorporate status
• Supported93
  The SEC said in September 2024 that S&P Global Ratings agreed to pay a US$20 million penalty for failures to keep electronic communications and admitted the facts in its order.
  Regulator statement, 3 September 20242 records citedDisclosure