In April 2009, Danyelle Freeman, an author and restaurant critic for the New York Daily News who runs the Restaurant Girl Blog, had her lawyers send a cease-and-desist letter to Adam Robb Rucinsky, the operator of an unflattering parody blog and Twitter feed.

Rucinsky writes the Gourmet Glossary Blog and the restaurantgirl Twitter feed in the guise of a faux-Freeman, lampooning both her conversational writing style and her (alleged) lack of expertise.  In Rucinsky's words, the character is “a sweet but inept restaurant critic who loves food but has no idea how to express it.”

In the cease-and-desist letter, Freeman's counsel asserted that Rucinsky's publishing activities infringe her trademark in "Restaurant Girl" and violate her right of publicity.  It also suggested that using Freedman's name and likeness in connection with false statements "may constitute defamation."

According to the New York Times, Rucinsky "has been talking to his own lawyers and doesn’t plan to budge."

On May 5, 2009, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster sent a letter to craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster threatening company management with "criminal investigation and prosecution" over the website's erotic services section, as well as "the unrestricted manner in which graphic pornographic pictures are posted and displayed by users on the craigslist site and their accessibility to minors."  The letter demanded that craigslist permanently remove those portions of the site "containing categories for and functions allowing for the solicitation of prostitution and the dissemination and posting of graphic pornographic material" by May 15, 2009. 

Buckmaster posted a response on the craigslist blog, stating that, while the company looks forward to speaking with Mr. McMaster about his concerns, it "see[s] no legal basis whatsoever for filing a lawsuit against craigslist or its principals and hope[s] that the Attorney General will realize this upon further reflection." 

Update:

5/12/2009 - After conferring with other state AGs, craigslist voluntarily dropped its "erotic services" section and said it would replace it with a new "adult services" category that will be manually reviewed by Craigslist staff.

5/15/2009 - South Carolina AG McMaster announced that he had "no alternative but to move forward with criminal investigation and potential prosecution" because the website "continues to display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material."

5/20/09 - Craigslist filed a lawsuit against McMaster in South Carolina federal court, seeking a declaration that its conduct is lawful and an injunction prohibiting McMaster from making further threats of prosecution and pursuing any such prosecution.

5/22/09- McMaster agreed to entry of a temporary restraining order pending a ruling on the merits of craigslist's claims.  He will refrain from "initiating or pursuing any prosecution against craigslist or its officers and employees in relation to content posted by third parties on craigslist's website."

Too Much Media, LLC ("TMM"), a software company that services the online adult entertainment business, sued Washington-based blogger Shellee Hale in New Jersey state court in June 2008, after she posted comments about a security breach in TMM's software product on Oprano.com, an online forum for those in the online adult entertainment industry.  The complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and trade libel. 

In March 2009, Hale moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that counsel for TMM had withdrawn all claims but "slander per se" in a January hearing, and that slander only applies to oral statements.  TMM opposed the motion, arguing that it had not limited its claim to slander in the January hearing, and that it can recover for libel without showing proof of pecuniary loss. 

Also in March 2009, Hale filed a separate motion asking the court to rule that New Jersey's journalist shield law protected her from having to testify about the identity of her confidential sources in her upcoming deposition. In a certification accompanying the motion, Hale testified that she reports on Internet security issues through several blogs (www.camandago.com; www.shelleehale.net/blog; and www.shelleeland.com), as well as on electronic bulletin boards and websites, and that she has developed relationships with confidential sources as part of her reporting and investigative processes.  TMM opposed the motion, arguing that Hale is not a "newsperson" within the meaning of the shield law.

The court held hearings on these motions on April 17 and April 24, 2009 and reserved decision for a later date.

UPDATE:

7/02/2009- The court ruled that Hale's conduct was not protected by shield laws and that the defamation suit against her may continue. 

07/22/2009 - Hale filed a motion for reconsideration. 

09/2009 - Hale appealed the trial court's ruling.

04/22/10 - The appeals court ruled that Hale was not entitled to protection under New Jersey's shield law because she was not working as a journalist or a reporter when she posted comments about Too Much Media LLC, according to NJ.com.

06/7/2011 - The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.  It held that New Jersey's shield law requires a party attempting to invoke the law to establish (1) a connection to news media; (2) a purpose to gather, procure, transmit, compile, edit, or disseminate news; and (3), that the materials sought were obtained in the course of pursuing professional newsgathering activities.  The Court noted that "news media" were defined to include both “newspapers, magazines, press associations, news agencies, wire services, radio, [and] television” and “other similar . . . means of disseminating news to the general public."  While the Court recognized that electronic communication could, in certain circumstances, be "similar" to the traditional media listed in the statute, it held that the online message board used by Hale was more a forum for conversation than a medium for dissemination of news and therefore did not satisfy the statute.

On July 14, 2008, Ecommerce Innovations filed a suit in the Central District of California against several Does alleging defamation and trade libel for posts on Ripoff Report, a website that allows users to post reports about individuals and companies that they believe have "ripped them off" or treated them unfairly.  After filing suit, Ecommerce served a subpoena on Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the operator of Ripoff Report, seeking the identities of the anonymous posters.  Counsel for Xcentric objected to the subpoena, and Ecommerce filed a motion in federal district court in Arizona, seeking to compel Xcentric to produce the requested information.

The district court ordered Xcentric to complay with the subpoena.  In its ruling, the court held that Ecommerce was required to present evidence sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment for those elements of its defamation or trade libel claim that were not dependent upon knowing the identity of the anonymous poster. The court analyzed five specific allegedly defamatory statements and concluded that Ecommerce had presented evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment with respect to one of the statements.

Xcentric moved to stay the order pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the district court granted the stay, finding that the question of what standard to apply before ordering disclosure of anonymous Internet posters was significant and unanswered by the Ninth Circuit.  The court also found that Xcentric could face serious hardship because "[o]nce the identity of the anonymous poster is revealed, relief from the Ninth Circuit will no longer be available to Xcentric."

Xcentric filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2009.  According to the docketing statement, the issues on appeal are as follows: "(1)Whether, in light of the First Amendment's protection of anonymous speech, the District Court applied the correct standard for a subpoena seeking to obtain the identity of an anonymous author; and (2) whether the District Court erred in finding that Plaintiff/Appellee met its burden of presenting evidence sufficient to overcome the First Amendment rights of the anonymous author?"

Ontario County District Attorney R. Michael Tantillo subpoenaed Canandaigua Messenger Post reporter Julie Sherwood to testify at the DWI trial of Canandaigua Town Supervisor Lloyd Kinnear — the second such subpoena in the case.

Attorney Michael J. Grygiel, a partner with the Albany-based firm Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, represented the Messenger and Sherwood. He argued that the subpoena should be quashed because the testimony sought is not critical or necessary to the prosecution’s case, violates the constitutional privilege applied to journalists, and would impede the Messenger’s ability to gather and report news.

Kinnear was charged with felony DWI after he allegedly drove his car off the road in East Bloomfield on the night of September 5. Sherwood interviewed Kinnear on September 6 for a story that was published in the Messenger Sunday, September 7.

Tantillo first subpoenaed Sherwood last fall, when the case was presented to an Ontario County Grand Jury. Grygiel petitioned the court to quash the subpoena, citing arguments similar to those in the current case. On November 3, 2008, state Supreme Court Judge Thomas M. VanStrydonck granted that motion.

On April 20, 2009 Judge Stephen Sirkin ruled that Sherwood had to testify. Sirkin made his ruling based on written arguments from Tantillo and Grygiel. The judge declined to hear oral arguments in the case.

Jeffrey Joyner, a California soccer coach, sued Jerry Lazzareschi, the operator of the forum Soccertalk.com, and his domain registrar Domains by Proxy, Inc., after a number of allegedly false and defamatory statements about Joyner appeared on Lazzareschi's forum site.  

Joyner coached two soccer teams for teenage girls, and in 2004 he merged the teams causing what a California appeals court called "parental unrest and heated discussion in the girls' soccer community."  The controversy over the team merger spilled onto the Internet and generated over 2000 posts on Sockertalk.com.  According to court documents, Joyner alleged that some of these posts falsely accused him of "financial improprieties," described him as "a cheater and a thief," and accused him of incompetence and "coach[ing] his . . . team . . . into the ground," among other things.  The statements were largely posted by unregistered users of the forum, but Joyner also alleged that Lazzareschi created forum thread titles and "republished the[] statements" on other websites "to lure viewers to [his] WEBSITE." 

Joyner filed suit against Lazzareschi and Soccertalk.com for defamation, negligence, negligent training/supervision, interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Joyner's complaint also contained a cause of action for fraud against Domains by Proxy for permitting Lazzareschi to obtain and register his domain name anonymously.  

The defendants moved to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), and the trial court granted the motion.  On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reversed, finding that the statements did not relate to a matter of public interest within the protection of the anti-SLAPP law.  After the case returned to the trial court, Lazzareschi moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case against him, ruling that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230") barred Joyner's claims based on third-party content.  Joyner appealed.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Section 230 gave Lazzareschi immunity for publishing the comments of his forum users.  The court concluded that Lazzareschi, as a website operator, qualified as the provider of an "interactive computer service" and that all of Joyner's claims treated him as a "publisher or speaker" of third-party content.  The court also ruled that Joyner's claim that Lazzareschi republished the defamatory content on other websites in order to "advertise" his forum was irrelevant because "the view that actively selected and republished information is no longer 'information provided by another information content provider' under section 230(c)(1) is groundless." 

The court also rejected Joyner's argument that, under the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Roommates.com, Lazzareschi lost his immunity by creating forum thread titles and deleting positive posts.  The court indicated that starting threads on topics of interest "is not by itself defamatory" because "positive messages about plaintiff or messages defending him could be and were posted under [the threads]."  The court also found that Joyner produced no evidence that Lazzareschi ever deleted positive messages about him. The court explained that, unlike in the Roommates.com scenario, no evidence -- let alone 'direct and palpable' evidence -- connected defendant to a posting or filtering process that was discriminatory or defamatory against plaintiff."

The case still appears to be pending against Domains by Proxy in the trial court. 

UPDATE: On 08/22/2008, the court granted Domains by Proxy Inc's motion for summary judgement. It appears that the court awarded fees to Domains by Proxy, since Domains submitted a sumary of its court costs on 09/03/2008 and scheduled an examination of judgment debtor on 09/26/2008.

On May 24, 2005, Cecilia Barnes filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! for negligently failing to remove unauthorized profiles from its Yahoo! Profiles website.  The profiles were created by Barnes' ex-boyfriend, and contained nude photos of Barnes and her work contact information.  According to the complaint, on March 29, 2005, Yahoo! contacted Barnes and assured her that they would put an end to the unauthorized profiles.  However, the complaint alleges that she continued to be harrassed by strange men.  Barnes claims that when Yahoo! contacted her, they undertook an affirmative duty of care under Oregon law, and this duty was violated when they failed to remove the profiles and prohibit them from being posted again.

On June 23, 2005, Yahoo! removed the case from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the District of Multnomah to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.  On November 8, 2005, the district court granted Yahoo!'s motion to dismiss the case, finding that 47 U.S.C. §230 immunizes interactive service providers, such as Yahoo!, from liability for failure to screen or remove third-party content.  The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case on October 14, 2008.

Update:

05/07/2009 - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order dismissing the case.  The appellate court determined that Barnes' allegations might support a claim for promissory estoppel and held that section 230 would not preempt this claim.

05/21/09 - Yahoo! filed a petition for rehearing.  An amicus coalition consisting of Public  Citizen, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Citizen Media Law Project, and EFF filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief supporting Yahoo!'s petition.

06/22/09 - The Ninth Circuit amended its opinion to remove section II of the opinion and to revise footnote 4.  The court denied Yahoo!'s and Barnes' requests for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

12/08/09 - The district court denied Yahoo!'s motion to dismiss Barnes' promissory estoppel claim.

Cherie Davis, mother of 2006 gold medal winner Shani Davis, the first African American speed skater to make the U.S. Olympic team, sued Google, Inc. in Illinois state court, seeking an injunction requiring the company to take down a blog post written by deceased sports blogger Sean Healy.

Healy published the disputed post in 2006 on his blog, Unknown Column, which is hosted on Google's Blogger service.  In the post, Healy repeated the claim, reported at the time by some mainstream media outlets, including The Associated Press and Chicago Tribune, that Cherie Davis had accused the U.S. Speedskating Federation of racism. (These reports are no longer available online, but The Age, an Australian news outlet, is still carrying a similar story.)  Healy subsequently died of cancer in 2007.  

In her complaint, Davis alleges that Healy's post was false and defamatory, that she cannot bring a lawsuit for damages against Healy because of his death and apparent lack of a probate estate, and that Google "would not be prejudiced by an order enjoining it from continuing to post Healy's statement on Healy's blog, as [Google] has no interest, economic or otherwise, in continuing to post Healy's statement."  Davis seeks an injunction requiring Google to take down Healy's post, as well as payment of legal expenses.

Banking and securities firm Goldman, Sachs & Co. sent a cease-and-desist letter to blogger Michael Morgan alleging that his websites infringed the firm's "Goldman Sachs" trademark.  The websites -- www.goldmansachs666.com and www.goldmansachs13.com -- serve as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis."  Morgan, a registered investment adviser, criticized the firm in site postings.

Goldman Sachs' letter alleges that the sites' domain names and content infringe the "Goldman Sachs" mark, violate other intellectual property rights, and constitute unfair competition.  The letter also alleges that Morgan's use of the mark gives the false impression that Morgan has an affiliation or commercial relationship with Goldman Sachs.

In response, Morgan filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in Florida federal court.  Morgan asked the court to declare that Morgan's websites and domain names did not infringe Goldman Sachs' trademark rights.  Morgan's Complaint also asked for declaratory judgment on Goldman Sachs' other claims.

Update:

7/17/09 - MediaPost reported that the parties settled, with Morgan agreeing to withdraw his lawsuit and Goldman Sachs promising not to sue, provided that Morgan continues to run a disclaimer on the site.

In March 2009, Terrance Esfeller filed a defamation lawsuit in Louisiana state court against Louisiana State University, its student newspaper The Daily Reveille, faculty advisers to the newspaper, and its top student editors. The lawsuit revolves around anonymous comments posted on the newspaper's website in response to the newspaper's coverage of an ongoing legal dispute with LSU.  After filing suit, Esfeller amended his complaint to include allegations based on a March 12 story the newspaper published about the lawsuit, which republished several of the comments in question.  In the suit, Esfeller sought money damages and an injunction ordering the removal of the comments and preventing further comments about him in the future.

Judge Todd Hernandez dismissed the case March 31, 2009.  He concluded that the newspaper and its operators were protected from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for comments made by the website's users.  Esfeller told the Student Press Law Center that he intends to pursue a case directly against the anonymous commenter or commenters and to use discovery to obtain IP addresses and other identifying information.