Admission Consultants, Inc. filed a motion for pre-action discovery in New York court, asking Google for identifying information relating to two email addresses tied to anonymous posts to a forum about business schools on BusinessWeek.com. The objected-to comments criticized the company in various regards.  In one, the commenter stated that he was shocked at Admission Consultants' lack of response to its unsatisfied customers.  In another, the commenter stated that he agreed with the statements on the message thread that Admission Consultants was not a legitimate company.  In a third, the commenter said that "[t]hese guys sound like complete crooks." 

In a December 2008 decision, the court denied Admission Consultants' request for discovery, finding that the comments could not support a defamation claim because they were statements of opinion, not fact.  Therefore, Admission Consultants could not show that it had " a meritorious cause of action and that the information being sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong," as required for pre-action discovery in New York.  The court also ruled that a message on a forum that "bumped" the messages above it did not constitute a "republication of the defamation for every message posted previously."

Former House Representative Richard Ottinger and his wife, June Ottinger, filed a John Doe lawsuit in New York state court over anonymous comments posted on a forum on LoHud.com.  In a special proceeding for pre-action discovery, the court ordered The Journal News, publisher of LoHud.com, to turn over the commenter's identifying information.  The Ottingers then amended the complaint to name Stuart Tiekert as a defendant.

According to court documents, Tiekert's comments related to a renovation project the Ottingers were carrying out on their home in Mamaroneck, New York, for which they sought various building permits. Some of the Ottingers' neighbors and local activists attended meetings held in connection with approvals and permits that the Ottingers needed, and one neighbor — Susan McCrory — stated her belief at a televised public meeting that the deed for the Ottinger property was "invalid" and "fraudulent."  The next day, Tiekert posted comments on LoHud suggesting that the Ottingers' deed was fraudulent, and that the Ottingers had used political pressure and bribery to obtain the requisite permits for the project.  The Ottingers sued, maintaining that these statements were false and defamatory. 

Tiekert filed a motion for summary judgment and attorneys' fees under New York's anti-SLAPP statutes, N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 70-a, 76-a and N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 3211(g), 3212(h). He also filed a counterclaim alleging that he was entitled to damages based on the Ottingers' filing of a SLAPP.

In August 2009, the court granted Tiekert's motion for summary judgment, finding that the action "involves public petition and participation brought by a public applicant, and which action is materially related to the defendant's efforts to comment on, challenge, or oppose said application," thus triggering the New York anti-SLAPP law.  The court further held that the Ottingers "failed to demonstrate that their action has a substantial basis in fact or law, or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of any existing law" and therefore dismissed the action. 

The court's precise reasoning on the latter point is not clear, but it may relate to the Ottingers' inability to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Tiekert made the statements in question with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, their falsity, particularly in light of McCrory's public statements the previous day.

The court determined, however, that Tiekert was not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because it found that the lawsuit was not "brought to harass, intimidate, punish, or otherwise maliciously inhibit the free exercise of speech."  The court also declined to award Tiekert attorneys' fees and costs.

Kiel J. Sturm sued eBay, Inc. for defamation after it refused to remove a comment critical of him left by a buyer, even after he obtained a court order ruling that the comment was defamatory.

According to articles in the San Jose Mercury News and Yahoo! Tech, Sturm initially sued the person responsible for the comment in small claims court.  After settling the matter, both parties sent a letter to eBay requesting that the comment be removed.  eBay responded that it required a court order stating that the comment was defamatory, so Sturm re-sued the buyer to get such an order.  When he presented it to eBay, however, eBay refused once again to remove the offending comment, stating that the court order contained "too many ambiguities."

At that point, Sturm sued eBay directly.  According to Eric Goldman at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog, the court dismissed the case on July 27, 2006, finding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230") provided eBay with immunity from liability for the buyer's comments.

According to the Mercury News article, eBay eventually removed the offending comment.

After anonymous users posted allegedly threatening comments to a Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVRJ) article about an ongoing federal criminal trial (the "Kahre case"), the US Attorney in that case issued a grand jury subpoena seeking information about all public commenters on that thread.  On June 16, 2009, the subpoena was narrowed, seeking personal information related only to two comments from the LVRJ article.

The two comments at issue are as follows:

• "I bid 10 Quatloos that Christoper Maietta [one of the prosecutors in the Kahre case] does not celebrate his next birthday."
• "The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him.  They should also be hung along with the feds."

(Amended Mot. to Quash 3).

On June 16, the ACLU of Nevada filed a motion to intervene on behalf of three John Does, along with motions to quash and for a protective order.  On June 22, amended versions of all three motions were filed, and a fourth John Doe was added.  The ACLU maintains that the comments are protected speech under the First Amendment because they are "in no way revealing of any criminal activity."  (Amended Mot. to Quash 3-4.)

On June 18, between the ACLU's initial and amended motions to intervene and quash, the LVRJ complied with the narrowed subpoena and turned over identifying information to the US Attorney's office.  The US Attorney filed a motion to dismiss on June 26, stating that the ACLU's motion to quash was moot.

In its July 13 response to the US Attorney's motion to dismiss, the ACLU claims that the issue is not moot, as the court may still provide the Does with relief despite the LVRJ's compliance with the subpoena.  Specifically, they suggest the court might prevent the use of any information gleaned from the subpoena, order all personal information that resulted from the subpoena be destroyed, and/or issue a protective order to "prevent future abuses of the grand jury subpoena to obtain information about critics of the government's position in the Kahre case."  (Response to Mot. to Dismiss 2.)

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the Metronorth commuter rail services to New York City's northern suburbs, contacted Chris Schoenfeld demanding licensing payments for use of its schedules on his website, www.stationstops.com, and in his StationStops iPhone application, which both feature departure times of Metronorth trains. 

The letter claimed that the MTA has an intellectual property right in its schedules and demanded an immediate $5000 royalties payment on past sales of the iPhone app, followed by 10 percent of future sales as royalties above this amount.

Schoenfeld says he has sold 3,000 copies of the program at$2.99 each.

Schoenfeld responded with an offer to pay 10 percent future royalties, in return for the MTA proving him with scehedule updates for free. The agency then responded with what news reports alternately call a cease-and-desist letter and a DMCA takedown notice.

UPDATE:

9/27/09: According to the New York Times, the MTA dropped its demand for royalties and reached a non-payment agreement with Schoenfeld and with the developer of a similar app for the Long Island Rail Road.

Details on this lawsuit are sparse, but it seems that a group of politically active people in Newburgh, N.Y. sued the creator and webmaster of the former forum section of the city's former official website, http://www.newburgh-ny.com (now redesigned and relocated).  Although the site was labelled and promoted as the city's official site, it was owned and maintainted by Frederick R. Embden.

The suit apparently stemmed from comments posted in the site's forums that accused the plaintiffs of various improprieties. The lawsuit appears to be part of long, ongoing dispute between factions of the city's civic community. A taste of vitriol and some (hyperbolic) discussion of the lawsuit in available in this discussion thread on the voy.com bulletin board site.

Trial was originally scheduled for September 2008, then postponed to August 2009.  But the parties reached a settlement on Aug. 28, 2009, when the trial was set to begin.

A Maryland prison director filed a defamation lawsuit against Maryland political blogger Joseph Albero for allowing an allegedly defamatory user comment to appear on his website. Douglas Devenyns claims an anonymous commenter on Albero's Salisbury News blog falsely stated he was a "sexual predator" who shortened female inmates sentences in exchange for sex, according to The Daily Times.

According to Delmarva Dealings, the suit seeks $150,000 in damages. The complaint tries to get around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by arguing that Albero is liable for the comment because he determines which comments to publish and whether he will edit them first.

Update:

9/10/2009 - Albero filed a motion to dismiss under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  He argues that the act protects third parties even if they perform some editorial functions.  

11/30/2009 - The court granted Albero's motion for summary judgment.

Quest Diagnostics, a medical diagnostic testing company, sued Joseph Mercola, who runs the Natural Health Center along with a couple of related websites, over articles critical of Quest that were allegedly published by Mercola on one of his websites. 

Quest alleged that that the articles contained false and defamatory information, stating that its tests are "inaccurate and unreliable" and have "caused some dialysis patients to undergo unnecessary surgery," while advocating on behalf of LabCorp, one of Quest's competitors.  (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 14-15.)  Advertisements for Mercola's products and services also allegedly appeared in close proximity to the articles.  (Compl. ¶ 12.)  Based on user comments posted to Mercola's articles, Quest claimed that the articles have deceived consumers and caused Quest significant harm.  (Compl. ¶ 13.) 

According to the Complaint, Quest had previously asked Mercola to remove an article he published in January 2009 that Quest claimed was "false and misleading."  Mercola allegedly agreed to take down the offending article and "refrain from making false and misleading statements regarding Quest Diagnostics, Inc."  (Compl. ¶ 16.)  Quest alleged that the articles that were at issue in this lawsuit violated this agreement.  

Quest brought claims of unfair competition under both the federal Lanham Act and New Jersey state statutes, defamation, trade libel, and breach of contract.  Quest sought money damages, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as a permanent injunction requiring Mercola to remove "all false and misleading statements regarding Quest Diagnostics from any publication or on-line medium under [Mercola's] direction, custody or control," post a retraction, and refrain from making any false or misleading statements regarding Quest.

On July 31, 2009, Quest voluntarily dismissed its claims.  All posts regarding Quest Diagnostics appear to have been removed from the mercola.com website.