The University of Virginia's (UVA) chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity filed a $25 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine, its publisher, and the author the now-retracted article title "A Rape on Campus," Sabrina Rubin-Erdely.

About one year ago, Rolling Stone published Erdely's article detailing a female student's experience being gang raped at the UVA Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house in Sept. 2012. Shortly after the article's publishing, numerous new outlets pointed out various inconsistencies and it was eventually subjected to an investigation from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR).

But before Erdely's article was disproved and eventually retracted in April, the UVA Phi Kappa Psi chapter claims it and its members have been subject to "danger and immense stress," according to The Washington Post.

"The fraternity chapter and its student and alumni members suffered extreme damage to their reputations in the aftermath of the article's publication and continue to suffer despite the ultimate unraveling of the story," the fraternity said in a statement Monday. "The article also subjected the student members and their families to danger and immense stress while jeopardizing the future existence of the chapter."

Three UVA graduates and Phi Kappa Psi members sued Rolling Stone in July for implicating them in the article. Though Erdely used alternate names in her article, the plaintiffs argued various details revealed their identity and subjected them to harassment and defamation, Reuters reported at the time. Nicole Eramo, a UVA assistant dean who assists sexual assault survivors on campus, also sued the magazine for being vilified in Erdely's article.

Though the CJR deemed the article a "failure that was avoidable," Rolling Stone did not fire anyone on its editorial team. However, Will Dana, the magazine's managing editor, resigned in July.

"In the most scurrilous traditions of yellow tabloid journalism, Rolling Stone published a devastating story it knowingly failed to verify, in reckless disregard for truth or falsity, or the essential safety, dignity, and welfare of the organization or of those lives it was willing to crush with its defamatory article," the fraternity's lawsuit stated. "The story was simply too tempting, too sensational, to let facts get in the way."

Related