Ricardo Salinas suffers two setbacks in the SCJN

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) yesterday gave two setbacks to businessman Ricardo Salinas Pliego. In the first room session, the direct protection was unanimously rejected in four votes in four votes. Damages, because it accuses that the dissemination of negative information they made about their real estate development caused the cancellation of a contract of sale of a house.

According to the project prepared by Minister Margarita Ríos Farjat, the company sued the settlers in December 2018 and the judge of first instance proved him right, condemning in 2020 the association to the payment of 225 thousand pesos for damages .

However, the association appealed before a collegiate court and managed to revoked the sentence when considering that the information released was protected by freedom of expression and information.

The Association of Colonos was limited to disseminating that it did not authorize services for real estate development, being truthful and impartial information. In addition, the company was able to demonstrate its falsehood in equal conditions, but did not do sopoints out the project.

In response, Banco Azteca promoted a direct protection, but was denied by the Collegiate Court, so the company challenged the decision, taking the case to the SCJN.

In her project, Minister Ríos Farjat concluded That the standard for the protection of freedom of expression used was not applicable because the conflict occurs between individuals, however, even applying the correct standard, the information continues to deserve constitutional protection, so the judgment appealed.

Second setback

At the same time, in the Second Chamber, the Court rejected the 8/2025 claim appeal that Salinas Pliego directly promoted through its legal representation.

In this resource, Minister Javier Laynez Potisek was unconformed from the decision of the Chair which is pending to resolve the highest court.

The controversial remission car does not contain pronouncement on the performance of the parties, much less prejudice on the bottom of the matter, since it only turned the matter, without implying, by itself, any definitive decision. Hence, it is concluded that the agreement appealed does not cause damage to the appellantindicates the approved project.