That seems like it could be the case, but it is not.
I am drawing from this annual talk the lawyer gave at a small paper I worked at...
TechCrunch published a potentially false statement of fact: last.fm recently provided the RIAA with a giant dump of user data to track down people who are scrobbling unreleased tracks. It doesn't really matter that they are just quoting someone else or even quoting someone who is quoting someone.
You will not be able to find libelous quotes in newspapers. Everyone in the business is very careful about this.
Proving malicious is a necessary factor in libel situations -- if you're a public figure, at least. I don't know how the "public figure" qualification applies to corporations.
Not in the UK it isn't; the libel laws there are heavily skewed in favour of the claimant. It's why so many celebrities choose to have libel trials at London High Court if at all possible. Last.fm operates from London, so it's definitely an option for them.
Of course, then you're in the whole other deeply problematic waters of international law, and what ability UK courts have to enforce judgements on TechCrunch, but such moves aren't entirely without precedent.
Last.fm is not likely a public figure. Most people considered public figures are celebrities or politicians. If you are interested in learning more, check out NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN from 1964.
