The prince greeting his bubba, Rupert Murdoch

Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has sued Forbes magazine for libel in a British court, alleging its valuation of his wealth at $20 billion was short of the mark by $9.6 billion, Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported…

The prince, a grandson of Saudi Arabia’s founder and nephew of King Abdullah, had attacked the U.S. magazine’s ranking of world billionaires as flawed and biased against Middle Eastern businesses after he was ranked number 26 in this year’s list.

An official at the High Court in London confirmed that Prince Alwaleed had filed a defamation suit against Forbes, its editor Randall Lane, and two of its journalists on April 30. Details of the claim were not immediately available.

Through his Kingdom Holding Company, Prince Alwaleed owns large stakes in Citigroup, News Corp and Apple among other companies. He is also owner or part-owner of luxury hotels including the Plaza in New York, the Savoy in London and the George V in Paris.

This year’s Forbes World Billionaires list was published on March 4, and the following day Kingdom Holding said the valuation process used “incorrect data” and “seemed designed to disadvantage Middle Eastern investors and institutions”…

Under British libel law, a claimant has only to prove that a publication was defamatory. Then the burden of proof passes to the defendant, who has several possible defenses, including that the publication was true.

FORBES magazine and Prince Alwaleed – they deserve each other.



  1. B. Dog says:

    Well, maybe he shoulda greased some palms with that oil money. I suspect the Forbes list is off considerably in many cases. Still, it is inspirational.

    • msbpodcast says:

      Still, it is inspirational.

      It is depressing is what it is.

      How did he get the $29.3 billion?

      Not by earning it, but by using its location in the sand, his family relations, his privileged birth and his repressive militia to rip you off at the pump.

      I’m sure that if you asked the people who subsist on his patch in the sand, they’d say that this oligarch scumbag ought to be strung up by his intestines.

      • Mister Brown says:

        I agree. But who do you want to see dead first?

        If you ask me, it’s a bit like watching 2 turds in a toilet where we’re all nothing but the water that supports them. If you’ve ever noticed, most of the water usually gets flushed before the turds go down.

      • pedro says:

        I didn’t see any gun being pointed to you head to force you to buy their oil.

        • msbpodcast says:

          Like you can live without buying a petroleum product…

          I already don’t own a car anymore.

          I’m doing my bit; are you?

          • pedro says:

            I don’t care if they sell oil and we buy it. That’s called “Economy”. I have to do no part in what I don’t care about, it is you who has to put your money where your mouth is if you wanna be taken seriously.

            And if you are satisfied with your part, leave us alone buying our oil then

  2. Peppeddu says:

    Forbes was $9.6 billion short?
    Dear Prince Alwaleed, the tax office would like a word with you

  3. noname says:

    Being a Saudi prince – $29 billion

    Suing FORBES magazine – priceless

  4. Dallas says:

    It goes to show that ego trumps money when you’re super wealthy.

    Let see how FUX News chief, Rupert Murdoch and one of his fuck buddies, King Habalaba will resolve this.

  5. bobbo, in Repose says:

    Forbes & Oil Prince = RICH = CRIMINAL.

    Its Math.

  6. jpfitz says:

    Disgusting display of vanity and greed. I’m sure Allah would approve. Hypocrites all.

  7. Cap'n Kangaroo says:

    Reuters reports that he is also suing Penthouse Magazine for reporting his schlong as only 5 inches long. The Prince says it is a solid 8 inches.

  8. Ivanova says:

    Life must be rough when all you have to do is argue with Forbes Magazine over exactly how many billions of dollars you’re worth.

  9. Benjamin says:

    Don’t you have to show that a statement was harmful to sue for libel? I don’t see that this is harmful.

    • JS says:

      Nah – that’s why the article referenced British libel law. In the US you basically have to prove to have been harmed intentionally*, but in GB a simple misstatement can lead to being sued.

      *I’ve seen “Absence of Malice” 3 times, so I know what I’m talking about!