Tedd W. Mason, a high school football player, filed a lawsuit against his teammate and MySpace.com user, Matthew Grey, for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy, false light, and defamation.  Grey allegedly punched Mason. Mason brought claims of defamation and other speech torts over Grey’s alleged discussion of Mason’s health on Grey’s MySpace.com page. Mason also brought suit against Grey’s parents, Rick and Kasia Gay, and the Riverside Unified School District.

According to Mason's complaint, he asserts that Grey, without warning, struck Mason with “a minimum of six punches to the face and head” on January 4, 2005 in the North High football team room.  Following this incident, the Riverside Unified School District allegedly mandated that Grey satisfy an "Anger Management Requirement."  Mason also contends that Grey sent him a written apology. Mason’s eight-count complaint  alleges that on or about August 3, 2005, Grey, after completing his Anger Management course, posted a message on his public page on myspace.com, a post that reads in part “FUCK TEDD . . .  I found out that im inelligable [sic] today and for some reason Tedd Mason is in need of MRI for his ‘severe headaches’ and yet he can still go full speed at practice everyday. Odd isn’t it . . .”  Compl. ¶ 47.

Mason claims that this post attempts to expose him “to hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace by alleging that [he] is of a dishonest character,” and  “to demonstrate that [he] is a liar, and therefore is defamatory on its face.” Compl. ¶¶ 48-49.

In addition, Mason asserts a claim for public disclosure of private facts: the disclosure of his private “health condition.” Compl. ¶ 54. Further, Mason claims that this “public disclosure was an unfair and inaccurate depiction” and therefore asserts a claim of false light invasion of privacy. Compl. ¶ 62.

Mason claims that employees of Riverside Unified School District “disclosed private facts about [his] health condition to . . . persons not authorized to receive such information, including . . . Matthew Grey, . . . Kasia Gay, and… Rick Gay,” and he asserts a claim of public disclosure of private facts. Compl. ¶ 81.

Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay each answered Mason’s complaint on Feb 16, 2006. They each put forth thirteen affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, estoppel, unclean hands, justification, and assumption of risk.

On August 20, 2007 Mason settled his claims of negligence and public disclosure against Riverside Unified School District for $75,000. Kasia and Rick Gay moved for summary judgment on August 24, 2007, arguing that Mason's settlement with the school gave them a right of off set. This motion was denied. On July 21, 2008 Mason settled his claims against Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay for an undisclosed amount.  

The warden of a Virginia prison sued two Connecticut newspapers for libel in a Virginia court, asserting that they published defamatory articles about him on their websites. In his complaint, Young asserted the newspapers implied he was racist and that he encouraged guards to abuse inmates. Compl. ¶ 7.

On Oct. 4, 2000, the New Haven Advocate and the Hartford Courant filed motions to dismiss the suit on the grounds that a Virginia court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Connecticut newspapers. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied the motion, stating the court could exercise jurisdiciton under Virginia law because the "defendants' Connecticut-based Internet activities constituted an act leading to an injury to the plaintiff in Virginia."

The newspapers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the lower court's decision. In its opinion, the court said the Connecticut newspapers could not constitutionally be subject to jurisdiction in a Virginia court because "they did not manifest an intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia audience."

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear Young's appeal on May 19, 2003.

Anthony La Russa, manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, sued Twitter after an unknown Twitter user created an account at twitter.com/TonyLaRussa and pretended to post updates as La Russa. The fake Twitter page included La Russa's photo and a handful of vulgar and apparently Cardinals-related updates. One line of the "profile" suggested it was all a fake: "Bio Parodies are fun for everyone."

La Russa's complaint alleged that the fake Twitter page constituted trademark infringement and dilution, cybersquatting, and misappropriation of name and likeness.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, La Russa's attorney tried to contact Twitter before filing the lawsuit, but got no response. Hours after the lawsuit was filed, Twitter removed the fake La Russa page and its postings. 

UPDATE: 

6/5/2009 - Twitter removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  STLToday.com reported that the parties had settled, citing La Russa as the source of the information.

6/6/2009 - Twitter denied reports that it had settled the lawsuit.

6/26/09 - La Russa filed a notice of voluntary dismissal after the parties settled the case.

Doherty Enterprises, Inc., a large Applebee's restaurant franchisee with approximately 80 restaurants in New Jersey and neighboring states, sued Michael Murray for defamation and trade libel over a critical comment posted to a September 2008 article on NorthJersey.com, the online edition of The Record. 

The article in question contained an interview with Ed Doherty, the founder and president of Doherty Enterprises. In the interview, Ed Doherty stated that he believes he “treat[s employees] with dignity and respect and provide[s] a great opportunity for them to have a good job . . . . I want the people that work for me never to want to leave me.” When asked what his "recipe for success was," Doherty replied: “Don't lie, don't steal. And treat everybody the way you want to be treated. If you do that, you've lived a good life. . . . It's so simple.” 

Michael Murray posted the following comment:

I find this article quite disturbing with respect to how Ed Doherty represents how he treats people. I am an advocate involved in a sexual harassment case and have arbitration transcripts which demonstrate that women . . . are routinely sexually harassed and that this behavior is condoned by high level management at Doherty Enterprises right up to the top. His General Managers & Area Managers commit perjury, obstruct and/ or [sic] ignore sexual harassment claims with immunity
[sic]. This man and his rhetoric are repugnant and fly in the face of the facts. . . . . Additionally, any reader who has a daughter, wife etc. [sic] working for Doherty are more than likely being subjected to similar treatment. . . .

At the time, Murray, a non-lawyer, was representing his daughter in the arbitration of a sexual harassment case against Doherty Enterprises, in which she claimed that she was sexually harassed by managers and employees of the Applebee’s at which she worked.  In late 2007, Murray had rejected a settlement offer on behalf of his daughter.

Doherty Enterprises filed suit, and both parties moved for summary judgment in April 2009.  In May 2009, the court granted summary judgment to Murray, dismissing all of the claims against him.  The court ruled that certain of the statements -- such as that Doherty's rhetoric was "repugnant" and that others were "likely being subject to similar treatment" -- were "pure opinion" subject to an absolute privilege. 

The court determined that the remaining statements related to a matter of public concern and that Doherty became a public figure for purposes of New Jersey law when he gave an interview with The Record, thus “voluntarily and knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that one in his position should reasonably know would implicate a legitimate public interest, engendering the real possibility of public attention and scrutiny.”  Therefore, the court held that the "actual malice" standard applied. Applying this standard, the court found that Murray had sufficient evidentiary support from the arbitration proceedings "to defeat any claim that these statements were made with the recklessness required."

The court refused to dismiss Murray's counterclaim for abuse of process, finding that factual issues remained about whether Doherty Enterprises brought the lawsuit with an "ulterior motive" to allegedly punish Murray refusing to settle the arbitration proceeding. 

According to one press account, Doherty Enterprises and Murray subsequently settled for an undisclosed amount.

Michael Patrick Leahy, author and founder of "Top Conservatives On Twitter," filed a lawsuit against blogger Stephanie Grasmick, Twitter user "Duke St. Journal," and 25 anonymous Twitter users for libel, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with contract.

Leahy, who appears to be handling the case himself, asserts that Grasmick posts on Twitter under the name StephanieInCA and is the operator of Teablogging, a site created "to chronicle the lead-up to the April 15 conservative hysteria Tax Day Tea Parties and to serve as a central repository for low-brow teabag-related sex jokes." His four-count complaint alleges, among other things, that Grasmick libeled him in a blog post on May 13, 2009, in which she falsely stated the he is:

• a "major tax fraud";
• a "delusional profiteering creep";
• an "insane clown"; and
• a "member of some alien race of Lizard People."

Compl. (First Cause of Action) ¶¶ 1-5.  Leahy also claims that Grasmick and Duke St. Journal repeated these false statements on Twitter.

Leahy also asserts a claim for false light invasion of privacy, although the conduct he complains about is more properly characterized as a claim for publication of private facts: the disclosure of his "residence in Williamson County, Tennessee."  Compl. (Second Cause of Action) ¶ 1. 

In addition to monetary damages, Leahy claims he is "entitled to see the complete records of all Facebook communications and telephonic commuications between Grasmick and her 283 Facebook friends, as well as public and private messages sent by Grasmick to those 469 persons she follows on Twitter, in order to determine the identity, if there is such, of any additional defendants who should be named in this complaint."  Compl. ¶ 18.

Update: 

May 22, 2009: Dispute resolved by mutual accord.  Leahy reported on his blog that "Grasmick has agreed to remove the false and misleading word from the headline of her May 13, 2009 blogpost which caused me to file a libel suit against her on May 18, 2009. I, in response, have withdrawn my complaint against her."  Grasmick confirmed the agreement and removed the word "fraud" from her previous blog post.

On March 5, 2008, Cintas, a Fortune 500 company and manufacturer of uniforms, sued several unions, including UNITE HERE, Change to Win, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, including Bruce Raynor, Ahmer Qadeer, Keith Mestrich, Elizabeth Gres, Peter Demay, Katie Unger, Stefan Antonowicz, and Does 1-100.  The complaint alleged violations of the RICO Act, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and defamation arising out of the defendants' activities online.  

Cintas claims that the defendants first attempted to interfere with their business and exploit fear of economic loss by disseminating false information through print and over the Internet.  Cintas next alleges that defendants made it clear that their interference would only cease if entered into an agreement with defendants regarding union representation.  

The defendants set up several websites that criticized Cintas, including cintasexposed.org (targeting customers), uniformjustice.org (targeting employees) and notonmytrack.info (targeting NASCAR fans).

On June 20, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that Cintas had failed to state any valid federal claims.  In addition, they argued that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.  Specifically, defendants argued that the trademark allegations, including those directed at their website, cintasexposed.org, must fail because their use of the Cintas mark was not commercial and posed no risk of confusion.

On March 9, 2009, the district court dismissed all of Cintas' federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims.  The court dismissed the trademark infringement claim, agreeing that there was no risk of consumer confusion with the use of "Cintas" in cintasexposed.org.  The court noted the obvious critical bent of the website and a disclaimer stating: "CintasExposed.org is an independent website posted by the labor union Unite. It contains criticism and information about the uniform and facilities services rental company Cintas . . . ." 

The court also dismissed the trademark dilution claim, finding that links to the UNITE HERE website, which in turn linked to the UNITE HERE store, did not make the use of the Cintas mark commercial. The court dismissed the cybersquatting claim by noting the defendants were not using the URL as part of a bad faith effort to make a profit.

Cintas filed a notice of appeal in late March 2009.

In May 2009, lawyers for Merrill Lynch sent cease-and-desist letters alleging copyright infringement to"Tyler Durden" of the financial blog Zero Hedge over six posts that cited or excerpted from Merrill Lynch reports authored by Merrill's former chief economist, David Rosenberg. According to Reuters, Zero Hedge is "an insider financial blog whose writers believe the worst of the meltdown is yet to come," and the Rosenberg reports jive with this bearish view of the economy.  

In a post about the takedown requests, Durden announced that he would take down the posts, primarily out of concern over the cost of hiring a lawyer, but he told Reuters that he hadn't yet ruled out consulting a lawyer. Because the disputed posts are down, it is impossible to tell how much of the Rosenberg reports Durden used.

According to BustedScammers.com on November 5, 2008, Deborah Dolen, author of several "Do It Yourself" craft books, requested all information about her be removed from their website.  BustedScammers.com also alleges Dolen threatened the owner of their hosting company with legal action.

On December 22, 2008, Dolen filed a lawsuit against Julie Ryals, the owner of the hosting company that hosts BustedScammers.com.  

On March 30, 2009, Dr. Barry Eppley, a plastic surgeon in the Indianapolis area, filed a lawsuit against former patient, Lucille Iacovelli.  The complaint included claims for defamation, trade disparagement, harassment, false designations and descriptions of fact, and false light publicity based on webpages, videos, and postings Iacovelli allegedly made regarding her past surgery experience with Eppley.  Eppley also asked for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Iacovelli from carrying out or writing about an alleged plan to commit suicide and publicize it in order to destroy his career. 

The court granted a temporary restraining order preventing Iacovelli from publishing anything related to a suicide attempt, her prior treatment by Eppley, or commenting on Eppley's role in preventing the suicide attempt the same day. Following a hearing on April 8, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker issued an order extending the temporary restraining order until April 18. 

On April 9, 2009, Iacovelli filed an answer to Eppley's complaint and counter sued Eppley, his lawyer Todd Richarson, and Lewis & Kappes (Richardson's law firm). On April 13, 2009, the court accepted Iacovelli's answer to the complaint but rejected her counterclaims as not conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

On April 17, the court granted Eppley's motion for a preliminary injunction.  The court found that Iacovelli's speech would not likely be protected by the First Amendment due to its defamatory and likely false nature as well as its lack of advancement of debate on a public issue. 

The preliminary injunction prevents Iacovelli or anyone in active concert with her from posting on the internet or emailing about Eppley, Eppley's attorneys, Lewis & Kappes, or referencing Eppley's actions with respect to Iacovelli's suicide threats.  It also requires her to remove any information about Eppley from any websites she controls, remove www.eppleyplasticsurgerysucks.com, www.barryeppleyplasticsurgeon.com, and www.lewis-kappessucks.com in their entirety, and refrain from registering any new websites that use Eppley's name.  It also requires her to remove any links to the listed websites until the conclusion of the lawsuit. 

FORBA Holdings, a dental practice management company, sued blogger Debbie Hagan after she posted internal FORBA documents on her blog, Dentist the Menace, which covers alleged misconduct in the dental profession.

According to the complaint, Google search crawlers indexed a password-protected FTP site hosting FORBA internal documents, and Hagan was able to obtain copies of these documents through a Google search for the term "forbainfo.com." The documents in question included marketing materials, recruitment strategy information, spreadsheets and facility information lists, as well as internal PowerPoint presentations. Hagan allegedly provided links to certain of the FORBA documents and posted copies of others for viewing and download.  FORBA contended that, by posting these materials, Hagan misappropriated trade secrets embodied in the confidential documents and infringed its copyrights in the PowerPoint presentations.  

FORBA also alleged that Hagan defamed the company on her blog by falsely claiming that FORBA engaged in "barbaric back alley dentistry and abusing children children in the process."

After filing suit, FORBA moved for a preliminary injunction barring Hagan from publishing its confidential and copyright-protected materials.  In November 2008, Hagan consented to the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting her from publishing or posting "any internal and/or copyrighted documents or other information of FORBA obtained, directly or indirectly, through access to the FORBA FTP Site . . . and/or . . . any other internal and/or confidential FORBA documents or information. . . ."

FORBA subsequently dismissed its defamation claim voluntarily, and later moved to voluntarily dismiss the entire case without prejudice, leaving the consent injunction in n full force and effect. The court granted the motion in April 2009, dismissing the case and leaving the consent injunction in place.