Cyd Duffin, principal of Colony High School in Palmer, Alaska sued MySpace, Inc. and John Doe defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy over the posting of a fake MySpace profile, which falsely depicted her "as a drug-using racist with a sexually transmitted disease who insults disabled students and likes books about pornography, anarchy and the Ku Klux Klan," according to the Anchorage Daily News.  The Anchorage Daily News also reported that Duffin dismissed MySpace from the case after the company agreed to cooperate by turning over records related to the creation of the fake profile.  

UPDATE:

7/14/2009 - Duffin dismissed the suit after two students confessed to authoring the fake profile. Though the two students were punished, Duffin did not disclose the severity of their punishment.

Self-published author Jeffrey Hammer sued Amazon.com in New York state court (later removed to federal court by Amazon) alleging libel, defamation, antitrust violations, breach of contract, and copyright violations, among others things.  The dispute revolved around negative reviews of Hammer's books posted on Amazon.com by reviewer Anthony Trendl and Amazon's failure to remove Trendl as a reviewer.  Before filing suit against Amazon, Hammer sued Trendl directly, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit.  (For details, see our database entry, Hammer v. Trendl.) 

Hammer's complaint claimed that Amazon was liable for publishing Trendl's allegedly defamatory statements, that Amazon violated his copyright by displaying a graphic depicting Plaintiff's book cover, and that Amazon breached its contract with him and otherwise violated his rights by removing his books from the site and refusing to do further business with him. 

Amazon moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Hammer's allegations failed to state a claim and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230") protected it from liability for publishing Trendl's statements. Amazon also moved the court for a permanent injunction to prevent Hammer from filing future lawsuits against it.

The court granted Amazon's motion to dismiss and partially granted its motion for a permanent injunction against Hammer.  The court ruled that Trendl's comments were statements of opinion that could not support a defamation claim.  The court dismissed the copyright claim, finding that Amazon's use of the book graphic either involved no copying, or alternatively, was authorized by Hammer.  The court found that Amazon was within its contract rights terminating its relationship with Hammer.  The court did not reach Amazon's Section 230 argument.

The court granted an injunction against Hammer preventing him from commencing any action against Amazon in federal court relating to reviews of his books or Amazon's refusal to do business with him.  

In early 2002, self-published author Jeffrey Hammer sued Anthony Trendl in federal court in New York alleging violations of federal copyright law and defamation for negative reviews posted on Amazon about Hammer's books.  Hammer also sought a temporary restraining order preventing Trendl from posting any further comments on Hammer's books on the internet, enjoining Amazon from removing his books from its website, and directing Amazon to remove the negative comments.

The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order.  It found that Trendl's comments were pure opinion and therefore protected speech and that there was no evidence that Trendl copied any of the work.  The court also ruled that Amazon could not be subjected to an injunction because it was not a party to the case, despite Hammer's argument that Amazon provided Trendl with an attorney.

The court also granted Trendl's motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Later, the court instituted a special procedure that Hammer had to follow if he wanted to file any papers in connection to the case because of the high number of motions he filed (over 50).  After receiving this order, Hammer continued filing motions and filed a lawsuit against Amazon.  The court then issued an order preventing him from filing any papers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York without advance permission from the court.  Hammer's appeals to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court were denied.  

On January 14, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) sued All Headline News (AHN), W. Jeffrey Brown, the owner of AHN, and Danielle George, a senior editor for AHN.  The AP claims that AHN is illegally copying and rewriting stories by AP reporters and distributing the stories to clients and displaying the stories on the AHN website.  The AP is seeking to restrain AHN from further distribution of AP material and to recover unspecified damages.

The AP is a not-for-profit membership corporation that describes itself as the oldest and largest news agency in the world, employing about 3,000 reporters, and distributing news content to thousands of radio and television stations, newspapers, and internet news portals.  AHN is a Florida-based company that describes itself as "a leading provider of news, weather, and other content for web sites, wireless, digital signage, interactive applications, broadcast and print use."  The AP's complaint alleges that AHN does not employ its own reporters, and instead instructs its writers to copy or rewrite breaking news stories found on the Internet. 

The AP's complaint specifically identifies six articles written by AP reporters, claiming that AHN "copied some or all of the expression contained within" the articles, and then transmitted the articles to AHN customers and displayed the articles on the AHN website.  The AP claims that these and similar practices have infringed their copyright "hundreds if not thousands of times."  The AP claims these practices also violated their quasi-property right in breaking news under the New York common law tort of hot news misappropriation.  The AP also alleges that AHN intentionally removed the AP's name from some news reports, constituting impermissible altering or removing of copyright management information under the DMCA.  AP's amended complaint also includes claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, unfair competition in violation of New York Common law, and breaches of contract. 

On February 17, 2009, Judge P. Kevin Castel, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted AHN's motion to dismiss the trademark claim, finding that it lacked factual support.  Judge Castel also dismissed the claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act, finding that AHN can legally claim that it maintains a "news division" even if they do no original reporting.  Judge Castel declined to dismiss the other claims, most notably finding that hot news misappropriation was a recognized cause of action under New York law. 

Update:

3/19/09 - The parties agreed to pursue private mediation.

6/15/09 - The court dismissed claims after the parties reached a settlement. According to a subsequent press release, AHN paid an unspecified sum to settle the case and "agreed that [it] would not make competitive use of content or expression from AP stories."  AHN also acknowledged that "there were many instances in which AHN improperly used AP's content without AP's consent" and that "the tort of 'hot news misappropriation' has been upheld by other courts and was ruled applicable in this case by U.S. District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel."

George Gillespie of Ohio filed suit on September 16, 2005 against two chat room users who allegedly humiliated him in AOL chat discussions.  The defendants, Bob Charpentier and Mike Marlowe, lived in Oregon and Alabama respectively at the time the suit was filed. Gillespie also sued AOL for allowing the alleged harassment to occur.

According to Law.com, Gillespie alleged that the chat room participants "acted in an outrageous manner, which they knew or should have known would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff . . .  The Defendants' conduct was so extreme and contemptible as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency."  Gillespie also alleged that Charpentier and Marlowe intruded into his "private affairs" and claimed that Marlowe  drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph his home (for posting on the web) and/or to file a change of address form with the local post office in order to disrupt his mail.  Marlowe denied traveling to Ohio.

On January 30, 2006, AOL moved to dismiss the suit or stay it for improper venue. Judge Christopher J. Collier dismissed the suit against AOL on February 14, 2006, but the grounds for dismissal are unclear. Charpentier, acting pro se, filed a response and sought to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie.  Following an oral hearing, the court dismissed Charpentier from the suit.  The case docket indicates that the court entered a default judgment against Mike Marlowe on April 28, 2006 in the amount of $221.80.

Korbel Champagne Cellars filed a John Doe lawsuit against 10 anonymous defendants. The defamation suit, filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, complains about a number of postings on a craigslist.org forum accusing Korbel of punishing employees who reported sexual harassment, plotting to cut down redwood forests on its property, and bribing law enforcement and court authorities.  Korbel contends that these accusations are false and have injured its reputation.

Korbel determined that some of the anonymous posters used Comcast's internet services.  At a March 4 hearing, Korbel requested that Judge Nadler order Comcast to turn over their names. According to Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson, Comcast complies with such orders, but only after notifying its customers that their identities are being sought. This enables posters to defend their anonymity. "Our policy is to give our customer notice and sufficient time to decide whether to contest the disclosure," Johnson told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

No opposition appeared to challenge Korbel's request, and Judge Nadler issued the order, but stayed its operation to give the posters an opportunity to seek a protective order.  Judge Nadler ordered Comcast to notify the affected subscribers of the discovery request within one week and gave the subscribers one month to take action.

The following is a user-submitted description:

Mortgage lender Mortgage Specialists filed a petition for injunctive relief against Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, a website that reports and publishes stories concerning the US housing-finance sector.  In one story, Implode Explode covered Mortgage Specialists, a New Hampshire corporation.  As part of the story, Implode Explode posted a .pdf copy of a document it received from an anonymous source, detailing Mortgage Specialists' loan volume in recent years.  Mortgage Specialists sued Implode Explode seeking an order compelling Implode Explode to refrain from posting the document, to disclose the identity of the source of the document, to produce all other documents obtained from the same source, and to disclose the identity of an anonymous poster who commented on the article about Mortgage Specialists and allegedly made defamatory statements.

The trial court rejected Implode Explode's arguments on personal jurisdiction and on the merits, granting all of Mortgage Specialists' requests for relief.  Implode Explode has a filed a motion to stay the injunctive order pending appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  Questions on appeal would involve: the right to publish under the New York Times standard; the protection of sources under the New Hampshire qualified reporter's privilege; the application of the test for injunctive relief where the petitioner's claims are against a third party and not the respondent; and the application of the Dendrite Test to the compelled disclosure of anonymous posters on websites.

Update:

4/7/09 - Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. filed a notice of appeal from Justice McHugh's order.

4/14/2009 - Justice McHugh stayed most of his order pending pending appeal.

6/22/2009 - Citizen Media Law Project and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted amicus brief in N.H. Supreme Court. ML-Implode filed its appellant's brief.

7/22/2009 - Mortgage Specialists filed its appellee's brief.

8/6/2009 - Implode-Explode filed its reply brief.

On July 7, 2003, Kathy Knight-McConnell sued Mary Cummins for securities law violations, trademark infringement, defamation, and other claims in federal court in New York.  At the time of the litigation, Knight-McConnell ran a forum for investor discussions and published a newsletter on various stocks.  According to a court decision in the case, Cummins, a stock trader from California, posted statements on website discussion groups and on her own website describing Knight-McConnell as a securities fraud "criminal," "insane," "paid to lie to investors," and "obese," among other things.  

In addition, Knight-McConnell alleged that Cummins intentionally maligned certain stocks that she promoted in order to drive their price down in violation of the securities laws.  Knight-McConnell also claimed that Cummins violated trademark law by linking to Knight-McConnell's website without permission, using Knight-McConnell's name in the post-domain path of URLs for seven of her web-pages, and posting liniks on Internet chat forums and discussion boards directing users to visit these pages."  

In a July 2004 opinion, Judge Buchwald dismissed the securities and trademark claims.  The court indicated that Knight-McConnell had no standing to bring a securities law claim because she did not allege that she purchased or sold the stocks in question in reliance on any statement by Cummins.  The court dismissed the trademark claim because linking to Knight-McConnell's site without permission was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law:

Even if we assume that plaintiff's name is a valid and protectible mark, plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant engaged in any conduct that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the defendant's website.  The mere appearance on a website of a hyperlink to another site will not lead a web-user to conclude that the owner of the site he is visiting is associated with the owner of the linked site.  This is particularly true in this case because defendant's website advertises real estate and web design services, not investment services, and defendant is continuously dissassociating herself from plaintiff by criticizing her and accusing her of misconduct.

Judge Buchwald also determined that using Knight-McConnell's name in URL paths was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law because a URL "merely shows how the website's data is organized within the host computer's files" and does not suggest affiliation, source, or sponsorship.

Looking at Knight-McConnell's many state law claims, Judge Buchwald determined that the complaint likely stated a cause of action for defamation, but that a defamation claim was not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on the court.  Buchwald indicated that Knight-McConnell's tortious interference with contract claim might be sufficient to establish jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, but that Knight-McConnell had failed to adequately plead this cause of action.  The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Knight-McConnell permission to amend her complaint.

Knight-McConnell amended her complaint, but, upon a renewed motion by Cummins, Judge Buchwald dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction in June 2005.  

In 2004, Seneca County officials allegedly used improper means to obtain the identities of several anonymous posters on Fingerlakes1.com who posted critical comments about them.  The anonymous posters subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging abuse of process, violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, "First Amendment retaliation," and violations of the Cable Communications Privacy Act. The posters alleged that former sheriff Leo Connolly and former undersheriff James Larson forced the operator of Fingerlakes1.com to disclose their email addresses without a warrant or subpoena under the pretext of a pending criminal investigation, and that Connolly and Larson enlisted the help of other officials to send a"illegal subpoenas" to various ISPs in an effort to unmask their critics rather than to pursue a legitimate law enforcement objective.

Before the civil lawsuit was filed, an Ontario County prosecutor brought criminal charges against Connolly for, among other things, attempting to retalitate against the anonymous posters, and a jury found him guilty on two misdemeanor charges of official misconduct. Former undersheriff James Larson pleaded guilty to theft and misconduct charges in 2008, receiving a 21-month sentence.  Larson completed a 19- month prison sentence and Connolly's two-year sentence is stayed pending appeal.  

On February 20th, 2008, the Mitans filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against eight individuals located throughout the U.S. and Vitramax Group, Inc., alleging libel and slander.  The Mitans' complaint claims that Emory and Carol Davis created a website called the "Mitan Alert" in October of 1999, and that a U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously found the website to be defamatory and ordered them "to cease and desist publication of the website, to remove it from viewing on the Internet, and never to publish the website again." 

The complaint further alleges that the Davises sent printed pages of the website to the other defendants via fascimile, and that the other defendants then transmitted those printed pages to third parties.  The Mitans do not identify any specific allegedly defamatory statements, but allege that the web pages "tend to prejudice [them] in their trade, calling and/or profession since the information damages [their] reputation for honesty, integrity, and morality."

Ronald Rash, Achim Neumann, Craig Cullinane, Linda Cullinane, and Thomas F. Cullinane, Jr., submitted motions to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Cullinanes also argued that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred the claims against them because the Mitans only alleged that they "received, faxed or discussed or discussed the content of a website that [they] did not author, edit or create."

The court granted the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Rash, Neumann, and the Cullinanes did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Kentucky.  The court rejected the Mitans' argument that receiving information from Kentucky was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.  The court did not reach the Cullinanes' section 230 argument.

The case is ongoing against Carol and Emory Davis and Vitramax. They filed an answer and counterclaims alleging abuse of process in June 2008.