Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did David and Barbara Mikkelson's relationship and divorce affect Snopes operations?
Executive summary
David and Barbara Mikkelson’s divorce triggered a prolonged ownership and legal battle that materially disrupted Snopes’ finances, leadership, and partnerships: Barbara sold her stake to Proper Media, David later alleged the sale cut off revenue and led to litigation, and the dispute coincided with operational strain and fundraising efforts to keep Snopes running [1] [2]. The conflict eventually resolved through ownership changes and management turnover — David stepped down and new owners acquired full control — but the episode reshaped Snopes’ business model, public partnerships, and editorial operations [3] [2] [4].
1. How a private split became a public business fight and cut off revenue
The divorce between David and Barbara Mikkelson moved from private to corporate when Barbara sold her 50% stake to Proper Media, a transaction that David later said left him without access to the company’s revenue streams and sparked litigation over control of Snopes [1] [5]. Reporting from 2017 documented David’s claim that the sale to Proper Media precipitated a legal fight that effectively stopped cash flow to his operation and forced Snopes into an acute funding crisis, compelling public appeals and renewed fundraising to cover operating costs and staff [1] [2]. Multiple contemporaneous accounts framed the dispute as both an ownership quarrel and a governance breakdown that forced Snopes to restructure how it funded verification work and sustained web operations [5] [4].
2. Operational consequences: staffing, partnerships, and editorial continuity under strain
The ownership dispute overlapped with visible operational impacts: Barbara ceased writing for Snopes after the split, David hired community contributors and freelancers to maintain content, and the organization’s staffing and editorial model shifted toward smaller teams and crowdsourced work during the dispute [2] [5]. Snopes also altered external partnerships amid the turmoil; the site withdrew from Facebook’s fact-checking partnership in 2019, citing concerns about efficacy and the need to prioritize its community and editorial priorities — a decision made in a context already affected by the financial and legal pressures stemming from the owners’ conflict [6] [4]. These changes underscore that the divorce-era ownership fight did not remain only a legal question but affected day-to-day fact‑checking operations and strategic alliances [2] [6].
3. Litigation, public appeals, and reputational friction during the dispute
Legal filings and public statements by David Mikkelson framed the post-divorce period as a battle for control that left Snopes exposed financially and legally; he publicly asserted that revenue had been cut off and that litigation was necessary to regain operational stability [1] [2]. Outside observers and some reporting highlighted other controversies during David’s tenure — including internal disputes and plagiarism allegations reported in later years — which complicated public perceptions of Snopes at a time when the organization needed trust and external support [7] [4]. Proper Media’s acquisition of Barbara’s stake and subsequent role in governance created conflicting narratives: David’s accounts described an existential threat to the site, while the counter-narrative emphasized contractual transfers and business-to-business disputes typical of media acquisitions [1] [2].
4. Resolution by acquisition and leadership change that reoriented the company
A key turning point arrived when new co-owners acquired full control of Snopes, concluding the long-running ownership dispute and resulting in a leadership transition: David Mikkelson stepped down as CEO and operational control moved to new owners who announced plans to stabilize and grow the site [3] [2]. Announcements show that Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup — described as media operators with experience building profitable businesses — completed purchases of remaining shares, bringing an end to competing ownership claims and enabling a strategic reset for Snopes’ business operations [3] [8]. This ownership consolidation allowed Snopes to pivot from crisis management toward rebuilding revenue models and reestablishing editorial and product priorities under new management [3] [2].
5. Big-picture takeaways: long-term effects on independence, trust, and the fact-checking ecosystem
The divorce-triggered ownership dispute produced a cascade of effects: immediate financial strain leading to fundraising, changes in staffing and partnerships, public litigation that complicated the site’s reputation, and eventual acquisition that changed governance and leadership [1] [2] [3]. These events illustrate how personal legal matters can become organizational crises for mission-driven outlets: institutional independence and sustainability were tested, partnerships like Facebook’s fact-checking program were reevaluated, and stakeholders debated whether the site’s editorial work could remain insulated from ownership conflicts [6] [4]. The resolution by third-party acquisition ended the legal uncertainty but left enduring questions for fact-checking: how to guard editorial integrity during ownership turbulence and how funding models can be insulated from founder disputes [3] [2].