In 2000, several movie studios filed suit against Shawn Reimerdes, Roman Kazan, and Eric Corley after 2600.com published the DVD descrambling program DeCSS, which allowed users to circumvent anti-piracy protections allegedly in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Judge Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision. 

Near the outset of the lawsuit, the district court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from posting DeCSS. Despite the order, Corley continued to engage in what he termed "electronic civil disobedience" by posting links on 2600.com to other sites that made DeCSS available. In the spring of 2000, Kazan and Reimerdes reached separate settlements with the plaintiffs in which they agreed to permanently refrain from posting DeCSS or linking to other sites that make DeCSS available. On April 10, 2000, 2600 Enterprises, Inc., was added as a defendant.

In district court, the defendants argued that their conduct did not violate the DMCA and that application of the DMCA to their activities violated the First Amendment.  The court rejected these contentions, reasoning that, while computer code is entitled to First Amendment protections, the DMCA restricts the non-expressive aspect of code -- the functional act of descrambling. The court held that the anti-trafficking provision of the DMCA, as applied to DeCSS code, is a content neutral regulation that furthers an important governmental interest and which does not unduly restrict expressive activities. The court also ruled that it could enjoin and impose liability for linking to websites publishing DeCSS so long as "those responsible for the link (a) know . . . that the offending material is on the linked-to site, (b) know that it is circumvention technology that may not be lawfully offered, and (c) create or maintain the link for the purpose of disseminating that technology." The court found that the defendants' conduct satified these criteria.

On May 30, 2001, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. 

Strax Rejuvenation and Aesthetics Institute, a plastic surgery clinic in Lauderhill, Florida, filed a lawsuit in May 2008 against a patient who allegedly posted a defamatory review of her treatment on CitySearch.com. The patient, Marshia Durham, said in news reports that she stands by her review, which accused Strax of mishandling her tummy tuck and facelift. She said she posted her comments on the web using only her first name. Durham's review has since been removed from the site.

On May 5, 2009, Durham filed a notice of lack of prosecution after no activity had occurred in the suit for more than ten months. If no action takes place within sixty days of the notice's filing, the court may dismiss the suit.

First Call Properties and its officers filed suit against AAA Apartment Locating and Craigslist in Texas state court, alleging, among other claims, trademark infringement, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference.  According to the complaint, First Call began posting advertisements on Craigslist's Corpus Christi site using their trademark phrase "First Call" in March of 2009.  Shortly thereafter, AAA allegedly began posting advertisements to the same Craigslist local site using the words "first call," "call first," and "call us first."  (Compl. 3.)  First Call alleges that AAA posted these ads "deliberately and intentionally in an effort to confuse the public into believing the ads were posted by [First Call]."  (Compl. 3.)  It also claims that AAA's ads contained "false, libelous and misleading information" about First Call.  (Compl. 4.)

First Call asserts that it sent multiple cease and desist notices to AAA, with copies sent to Craigslist.  Based partly on this, it asserts that Craigslist knew of AAA's "unauthorized practice" and did nothing to stop it, materially contributing to AAA's alleged infringement.  (Compl. 5.)  First Call is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions and damages.

On May 29, 2009, the Nueces County District Court entered a temporary restraining order, barring AAA from posting ads containing phrases such as "first call," "call first," or "call us first," which might cause confusion and deceive the public; using a telephone logo similar to that used by First Call; making false or defamatory statement about First Call or its officers, agents, or employees; or causing ads posted by First Call to be removed from Craigslist or any other public domain.  Craigslist was barred from removing legitimate ads posted by First Call. 

The temporary restraining order was made reciprocal by the court, pursuant to an agreement by the parties, thus barring First Call from using AAA's trademarks, making false or defamatory statements about AAA, or causing AAA's ads to be removed.  It was also extended to include Stephan Noak and Sarah Regmund, owner of Free Apartment Locators, neither of whom are parties to the litigation.

On June 26, 2009, the case was removed to the federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  A hearing is scheduled for July 29 before Judge Janis Graham Jack.

UPDATE: 

07/15/09- First Call filed a motion to dismiss the case against Craigslist. However, it continued its suit against the other parties. 

On February 19, 2009, lawyers representing Sam Sethi, a former employee of TechCrunch and former CEO of now-defunct BlogNation, sent a letter to TechCrunch co-founder Michael Arrington threatening suit "within the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales, at the Royal Courts of Justice (in London, UK)" for libel. 

The basis for the suit is a series of allegedly defamatory posts on CrunchNotes (the TechCrunch blog) which stated, according to the letter, that:

• "[S]ome of [Sethi's] former writers have accused him of fraud and other crimes."
• Sethi "had threatened to kill" one of his former business associates.
• Sethi was "involved in '. . . usury, fraud even'" (quoting from a blog post by Oliver Starr).
• Sethi is "predisposed to making threats of violence and making others feel threatened by him and being thoroughly deceitful."

Sethi is also suing based upon the "posting [of] a confidential (and stolen) termsheet from [BlogNations'] VC funders," which, according to Sethi's lawyers, "seriously jeopardize[d]" the BlogNation's funding.  Sethi is asking TechCrunch to remove all posts that include allegedly false accusations about him, publish an apology, undertake "not to repeat the same or similar libels again," pay his legal costs, and donate damages to a charity or "towards fees of those unpaid editors at Blognation who had remained faithful to the end."

Michael Arrington replied to Sethi's letter through his lawyers, asserting that TechCrunch is "not susceptible to the jurisdiction of English courts" and that an English judgment would not be recognized or enforced by US courts.  He also provided evidence, mostly in the form of blog posts and comments by others, that he believes supports the veracity of the statements made in the CrunchNotes posts at issue.  TechCrunch has also offered Sethi the opportunity to submit a reply "concerning the challenged statements" that would be posted "with equal prominence to [TechCrunch's] previous posts about him."

According to TechCrunch, a lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2009. Based on third party reports, the lawsuit appears to have been filed in the United Kingdom.

YP.Net Inc., a provider of online Yellow Pages, filed a defamation lawsuit in Arizona federal court against StockLemon.com after the website published critical statements about the company.  YP.Net alleged that StockLemon.com intentionally sought to damage YP.Net's reputation in order to drive down its stock price.  YP.Net voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice in August 2004. 

B.F. Shaw Printing, the Northwest Herald’s parent company, filed a lawsuit against Cal Skinner Jr.,  a local blogger, for alleged defamatory comments, regarding the Herald's past funding and supposed political bias, that he posted on his blog.

Shaw's three-count complaint claims defamation, false light, and commercial disparagement arising from a June 3 post "Borrowing on Borrowing " on Skinner's blog, mchenrycountyblog.com. The post, repeated in Shaw's complaint, read in part (Compl. Count I ¶ 4):

[W]ho could forget the multimillion loan to the Northwest Herald at sub-market rates. . . . the NW Herald was not an 'in extremis' condition then. The excuse for loaning the money was to keep the county newspaper from moving out of the county. The real reason was to put the paper in the back pocket of the Republican Party. (Anyone want to deny the strategy worked?)

Shaw's complaint states that it “has never been the recipient of any loan, from any public body, at market or sub-market rates “ (Compl. Count I ¶ 7), “is not, and never has been, ‘in the back pocket’ or under the control or influence of the McHenry County Republican Party” ( Compl. Count I ¶ 8) and “is not now, and has never been ‘in extremis’ condition.” (Compl. Count I ¶ 9). Shaw claims that Skinner's statements "impugn the financial and editorial integrity of [the Northwest Herald]" and they "constitute defamation per se." (Compl. Count I - ¶¶ 20, 22).

Skinner, in his answer to the complaint, admitted to writing the post and claimed that his statements were true. (Answer at p. 10). He attached a copy of Resolution R-8511-02-86 from the McHenry County Board, which he claims shows that “the plaintiff was a participant in and beneficiary of a $2.6 million dollar loan, with interest at 80% of prime, from the McHenry County Board.” (Answer describing Ex. 1).

Skinner also offered 14 additional affirmative defenses including: failure to mitigate, unclean hands, failure to state an actual injury, and fair reporting privilege for “statements relat[ing] to matters of governmental affairs.” (Answer at p. 12 – 13).

Skinner countersued Shaw for bringing a frivolous suit, defamation, and false light. Skinner claims he was defamed by an article published by the Northwest Herald concerning the original lawsuit,  "Northwest Herald's owner sues blogger, claims defamation." The article, according to Skinner, “essentially parroted the allegations set forth in the lawsuit, but also contained the following . . . statement: Northwest Herald Publisher John Rung said Skinner’s assertions were ‘reckless and completely fabricated.’”(Answer at p. 22-26). 

Update:

1/29/10 - press accounts report a settlement.

Robert Salyer sued the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Kentucky state court over allegedly defamatory content in its print and online magazine, "Intelligence Report," which he claims stated that "he had been disbarred from practicing in military courts and also that he had received a dishonorable discharge."  (Compl. ¶ 3.)  The article at issue seems to have been edited at some point to remove the allegedly defamatory content, but re-posts at Crime and Criminals and The Experiment maintain the original content.

The SPLC removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the suit as barred by the statute of limitations.  Although the district court judge agreed that the suit was filed after Kentucky's one-year statute of limitations on defamation actions had run, he denied the motion pending discovery, as "changes to the website’s content may exist that would constitute substantial modification."  (Op. Den. Mot. to Dismiss 7.)  Such modifications would constitute republication of the allegedly defamatory content, and would thus "reset the clock" on the statute of limitations.

On April 28, 2009, Salyer amended his complaint, adding a claim of outrage (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress).  The judge granted the SPLC's motion to dismiss this new claim since Kentucky law bars an outrage claim where a plaintiff's other tort claims allow damages for emotional distress, as defamation does.

The state of Hawaii indicted Rhonda Wong-Fernandez, a former clerical assistant, on the charge of unauthorized computer access in the first degree after she allegedly accessed a female patient's medical records and posted on a MySpace page that the patient had HIV. 

The government alleged that Wong-Fernandez illegally accessed the medical records of a patient with whom her sister was feuding. Wong-Fernandez allegedly wrote on a MySpace page "no wonder she's so pale. She's dying of aids. Poor thing, she has HIV. That's why she's hating. . . . I hope she dies." 

On March 31, 2009, Wong-Fernandez pled no contest to the charge of unauthorized computer access in the first degree, apologized in court, and asked for no jail time. Prosecutors asked for one month of imprisonment. The court disagreed with the sentencing recommendations of both parties and instead sentenced Wong-Fernandez to one year in prison, five years probation, and 200 hours of community service. The judge reportedly said during sentencing that "people in this society have to realize that the Internet is not something that can be taken advantage of. You can't use the Internet to do unlawful conduct."

James Ricobene filed suit against JP Morgan Chase and collection agency Universal Tracing Services (UTS) after a UTS employee allegedly posted a message on Ricobene's daughter's MySpace page threatening legal action if he did not surrender his 2007 Mercedes GL450, which he apparently used as collateral to secure a loan from Chase. 

According to Ricobene's complaint, the message posted on Gina Ricobene's MySpace page read as follows:

We have been retained by, JPMorgan Chase Bank, to locate and repossess their missing collateral a 2007 Mercedes GL 450. Please contact our office immediately so we can discuss the peaceful recovery of the collateral. Failure to contact me will result in further action against your father James Ricobene. Legal options range from having a replevin order served on you or even worse reporting the collateral as stolen to local authorities in Illinois under the A.R.S. act 18-5-504. Failure to comply with this notice of surrender is a class 5 felony and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years plus all applicable surcharges. You must contact the writer within 5 days to prevent this action from taking place. You can contact me directly at 800-667-7704 ext 222 or directly at 604-267-1581 ext. 222

Awaiting your immediate response.

Chris Flanagan
Senior investigator

Complaint ¶ 6.  Ricobene's complaint points out that refusing to return collateral without a court order is not a crime in Illinois, and that "there is no such thing as a 'class 5 felony' in Illinois." Complaint ¶¶ 11, 13. It also alleges that friends and family members saw the message on MySpace, causing Ricobene humiliation, embarassment, and emotional distress.

Ricobene's complaint includes claims of libel, false light invasion of privacy, and consumer fraud.  According to Chicago Breaking News, his daughter Gina has also filed suit, claiming invasion of privacy and consumer fraud.

According to  On Point News, UTS denies having an employee by the name stated in the post and claims that "no employee 'has ever posted anything on anyone's MySpace page."  Its website, however, boasts that "Universal tracing prides itself in using the latest technology and resources to track down and locate the hardest to find missing persons, and debtors." (emphasis in original)

TFSC, LLC, a public relations firms doing business as Tanner Friedman, is suing an unknown Twitter user in a Detroit federal district court seeking injunctive relief and damages arising out of his use of the Twitter account "tannerfriedman."  Tanner Friedman, in its complaint, alleges that "tannerfriedman" posted "false and defamatory statement[s] regarding Tanner Friedman on the Twitter website using the hijacked name."  (Compl. ¶ 14.)  Tanner Friedman also alleges that "tannerfriedman" posted tweets by legitimate Tanner Friedman employees to "mislead Twitter users that it was Plaintiff who was posting these tweets and to impugn its reputation."  (Compl. ¶ 17.). 

Besides defamation, the complaint includes claims for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), unfair competiton under federal and state law, trademark infringement under federal and state law, cyberpiracy, and intentional interference with contractual or business relations.

After filing suit, Tanner Friedman moved the court for permission to subpoena Twitter for identifying information about the unknown user.  The court granted the motion, which was unopposed. According to The Detroit News, John Doe was traced to a computer at a rival firm. 

According to its blog, this tweet, and CBS-affiliated WWJ Newsradio, Tanner Friedman has now gained possession of the "tannerfriedman" Twitter alias.