On October 3, 2008, Nomvuyo Mzamane, the former headmistress of Oprah Winfrey's South African Leadership Academy for Girls, filed a defamation lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against online news site and group blog The Huffington Post, its owner Ariana Huffington, and blogger and publicity expert Joan Stewart.  She also filed a separate lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey.

On November 7, 2007, Stewart published a blog post on The Publicity Hound's Blog, in which she commented on Winfrey's efforts to manage the public relations fallout from a sexual abuse scandal at the Academy.  In the post, Stewart falsely stated that Mzamane had been charged with a crime in connection with the scandal.  On November 19, 2007, Stewart republished the statement in a posting on The Huffington Post.  In her lawsuit, Mzamane claimed that this statement was defamatory.  

According to the Media Bloggers Association's Legal Blog, the parties settled in December 2008.  The Huffington Post and Stewart both agreed to post apologies alongside the original posts (here, here), but they did not make any payments or provide any other consideration. 

Navy officer Alan J. Ballard sued Christopher Wagner and the National Association of Government Employees, Local R01-077, after Wagner, then-president of Local R01-077, published a website subtitled "When telling the truth hurts[:] Dedicated to Exposing Lies at Naval Air Station, Brunswick."  According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: "The site published statements by Ballard that he did not see a proposed contract with union employees, and that an oil leak at an on-base child care center had been repaired. The word 'Lie' was handwritten in the margins next to both statements."

Ballard filed suit in Superior Court in Sagadahoc County, Maine.  After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Ballard, awarding him $75,000 in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages.  Wagner and the union appealed, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in 2005.  The high court concluded that Wagner had made statements of fact, not opinion, when he characterized Ballard's statements about problems at the base as "lies."

The Atlanta Humane Society (AHS) and its director, Bill Garrett, sued Kathi Mills for allegedly defamatory statements made on an Internet bulletin board.  In 2001, an Atlanta television station aired a "Whistleblower 2" series investigating AHS, which criticized AHS's management of county animal control, particularly its euthanasia policies, its failure to place animals for adoption, and its failure to assist in investigating animal cruelty cases.  Garrett was interviewed for the series.  In response to the television series, Mills, an animal rights advocate and publisher of the Kitty Village website, posted critical statements about Garrett and AHS on a Yahoo! group chat room for people in the local rescue community.

After AHS and Garrett filed suit, Mills moved to strike the complaint under Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute and also moved for summary judgment.  The trial court denied the motion to strike, granted summary judgment against AHS, and denied summary judgment against Garrett.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Georgia reversed the trial court, holding that it should have granted Mills' anti-SLAPP motion because it found that Mills had been commenting on a matter of public concern.  The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed and remanded for further consideration of whether the plaintiffs' complaint was falsely verified. 

On remand, the Court of Appeals of Georgia put aside the anti-SLAPP issue and ruled that the trial court had properly granted summary judgment against AHS because it was a governmental entity unable to sue for defamation.  It also ruled that the trial court should have granted summary judgment against Garrett because he was a limited-purpose public figure and had not produced evidence of actual malice.  In particular, the court explained that Mills was entitled to rely on the content of news reports:

Private citizens are not required to investigate the investigators to ensure that programs aired by a major television station are accurate and correct before making comments based on those programs, and failure to do so does not amount to malice in a constitutional sense.

Atlanta Humane Soc'y v. Mills, 618 S.E.2d 18, 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). The appellate court therefore reversed the trial court insofar as it had denied summary judgment against Garrett and dismissed the case in its entirety. 

iXL Enterprises, an Internet consulting company, sued to obtain the identity of an anonymous internet poster who criticized the company on a Yahoo! message board.  iXL claimed that the defendant was an iXL employee, and that the internet postings violated his/her employment agreement.   

iXL obtained a subpoena to force Yahoo! to reveal the identity of the anonymous user.  The Doe defendant moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that he/she was not an iXL employee and that the First Amendment protected his/her right to speak anonymously.  According to cyberSLAPP.org, "the case was not pursued to decision" because iXL went out of business. 

In October 2005, Jeanne Caldwell filed a complaint in federal court in California against Roy Caldwell, the Director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology, David Lindberg, Chair of the Integrative Biology Department at UC Berkeley, and Michael Piburn, Program Director for the National Science Foundation.  Ms. Caldwell claims that a website published by the University of California, "Understanding Evolution," impermissibly endorses, advances and proselytizes certain religious beliefs.

Specifically, she claims that one page on the site, entitled "Misconception: 'Evolution and Religion are Incompatible,'" states that Darwin's theories and religion can co-exist.  Caldwell argues that UC Berkelely's government-funded website contradicts a religious belief that evolution and religion are incompatible and amounts to a state position on religious doctrine. This violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment barring Congress from making any law respecting the establishment or exercise of religion.

In March 2006, the district court dismissed Caldwell's claims, holding that she failed to make out taxpayer standing and her allegations constitute no more than the generalized grievances of one who observes government conduct with which she disagrees. Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Caldwell had not shown injury in fact.

On October 3, 2008, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

In March 2008, Lawrence Sinclair sued three pseudonymous Internet users -- TubeSockTedD, mzmolly, and Owningliars -- for defamation in federal district court in the District of Columbia. 

In late 2007/early 2008, Sinclair published a YouTube video and blog claiming that he had engaged in sexual activities and done drugs with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. This sparked a vociferous response from many Internet users, who criticized Sinclair and challenged his claims about Obama. 

According to court documents, one such Internet user, "TubeSockTedD," allegedly posted a video on YouTube that stated "Larry Sinclair is Spreading Lies About Obama."  Days later, another Internet user going by "Owningliars" allegedly posted a statement on Digg.com, linking back to an unspecified video, urging readers to watch it as "proof" that Sinclair was lying, and stating that Sinclair was in a mental hospital when he claimed to have met Obama.  Later still, another Internet user going by "mzmolly" allegedly posted a comment on a forum on Democratic Underground, repeating the claim that Sinclair was a former mental patient.

After Sinclair filed suit, he subpoenaed Democratic Underground, Google, and Digg seeking identifying information about the pseudonymous defendants.  Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, representing both mzmolly and Democratic Underground, objected to the subpoena in a strongly worded letter. Sinclair then moved to compel Democratic Underground to disclose mzmolly's identity, and both mzmolly and Democratic Underground opposed the motion to compel, arguing that First Amendment protection for anonymous speech shielded mzmolly's identity from disclosure under the circumstances. 

In February 2009, the district court issued an opinion denying the motion to compel and dismissing the complaint in its entirety.  The court held that Sinclair was not permitted to compel the identification of the three pseudonymous defendants because he could not meet the heightened standard required by the First Amendment.

Specifically, the court held that Sinclair's complaint was facially invalid because it did not plead facts necessary to establish the court's subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the pseudonymous defendants.  In addition, the court ruled that Sinclair's defamation claims failed as a matter of law because he did not plead either actual malice or special damages, and because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected mzmolly and Owningliars for "simply summarizing and reporting information obtained from" a third party.

Although it quashed the subpoena and dismissed the complaint, the district court refused to award mzmolly and Democratic Underground sanctions against Sinclair because of the novel areas of law involved. 

Actress Christianne Carafano (stage name Chase Masterson) sued Matchmaker.com, an internet dating site, after a user created a fake profile using Masterson's name, address, telephone number, and pictures.  

Matchmaker.com is an internet dating site that allows members to post their own profiles and search a database of other members' profiles.  Members fill out a  questionnaire, and their answers become part of their profile.  Matchmaker.com does not seek to verify the identity of  members or the accuracy of the profiles.  In addition, all members must agree to the Matchmaker Disclaimer, which prohibits users from putting their home address, e-mail address, or telephone number in their profile.

An anonymous individual created a Matchmaker.com profile under the name "Chase529."  The profile listed Carafano's home address and e-mail address, and included four pictures of her.  Among other things, the answers to the questionnaire indicated that the user was "looking for a one night stand" and "might be persuaded to have a homosexual experience."   Carafano claims that she received obscene phone calls and e-mails as a result of the profile.   

After learning about the profile, Carafano contacted the police.  Two days later, Carafano's website manager contacted Matchmaker.com.  Matchmaker.com removed Chase529's profile from its system.   Carafano subsequently sued Matchmaker.com and its corporate successors (Metrosplash.com and Lycos Inc.) for defamation, invasion of privacy through publication of private facts, violation of the right of publicity, and negligence.

Matchmaker.com claimed that it was immune from liability because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230").  Section 230 states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."    Carafano argued that Matchmaker.com was not simply a passive service, but actually provided content since it supplied the multiple-choice questionnaire used to create profiles. 

The district court rejected Matchmaker.com's argument based on Section 230, finding that it was partly responsible for providing profile content.  The court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the defendants because Carafano had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact for essential elements of her claims.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, but on different grounds. It held that Section 230 immunized the defendants because "Matchmaker cannot be considered an 'information content provider' under the statute because no profile has any content until a user actively creates it."  

In the midst of a lawsuit over efforts to redevelop Wilson Yard in Chicago, developer Peter Holsten sent a subpoena to Google, Inc. for information regarding two anonymous Chicago blogs. 

In December 2008, community group Fix Wilson Yard filed a lawsuit in opposition to a plan by Holsten's development company and the City of Chicago to redevelop the Wilson Yard area of Chicago.  According to Holsten's attorney, Holsten has asked Google, which hosts the Uptown Update and What the Helen blogs, to provide "all the information for [the] two particular sites."

It is not clear what connection the blogs have to the lawsuit.  However, both blogs are known as Uptown-related watchdog sites: Uptown Update discusses a wide range of information regarding the Uptown area, while What the Helen (now defunct) focused on the 2007 election campaign of Uptown alderman Helen Schiller.

Update:

The  Chicago News-Star is reporting that Holsten's attorney sent subpoenas to two additional websites operated by "neighborhood block club" Buena Park Neighbors and the Uptown Neighborhood Council.  

The neighborhood organizations are being asked to produce all posts in "the form of a blog, chat room comment, website (sic) post or any other form that relates to the Wilson Yard development, Alderman [Helen] Shiller, or Uptown development."

In addition, the subpoenas ask for all documents pertaining to the six Uptown residents named as plaintiffs in the Fix Wilson Yard lawsuit.

Neither the blog sites nor Buena Park Neighbors are affiliated with Fix Wilson Yard or its lawsuit. Katharine Boyda, the current president of the Uptown Neighborhood Council, which was originally formed to oppose the Wilson Yard development, is one of the resident-plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.

Matt Zimmerman from EFF told the News-Star that Holsten's attorney had extended the February 4, 2009 return date for the subpoenas so the parties can discuss the requests.

Update: 

06/22/09 - EFF filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on behalf of the Does.

07/09/09 - The court stayed enforcement of the subpoenas.

8/21/09 - EFF filed a renewed motion to quash the subpoenas on behalf of the Does.

In July 2008, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and Chicago 2016, a non-profit corporation responsible for the preparation, submission, and negotiation of a bid application to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago, filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against Stephen Frayne under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). They alleged that Frayne had violated the UDRP by registering and using the domain name chicago2016.com in "bad faith."

Frayne, a grad student at North­western’s Kellogg School of Management, registered the chicago2016.com domain name in 2004, two years before Chicago made a bid for the 2016 Olympic Games and two years before Chicago 2016 filed to register "CHICAGO 2016" as a trademark (the mark was registered on April 22, 2008). He uses the domain name in connection with a website forum designed to provide a "comprehensive, balanced discussion about the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid." The site hosts economic analysis and articles by local residents on the "economic and safety issues associated with the Olympics and their impact on Chicago and surrounding areas." Chicago 2016 and USOC initiated the WIPO action after unsuccessfully attempting to persuade Frayne to sell the domain name to them.

After the WIPO action commenced, Frayne filed a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois, seeking a declaration that his use of chicago2016.com did not infringe Chicago 2016 and USOC's trademark, that he had not violated the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (which protects certain trademarks associated with the Olympics), and that his use did not constitute cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). He also claimed that Chicago 2016 had violated his constitutional rights, and that Chicago 2016 and USOC had engaged in reverse domain name hijacking and attempted reverse domain name hijacking.

USOC and Chicago 2016 filed counterclaims, alleging trademark infringement, violations of the Ted Stevens Act, and cybersquatting. They successfully moved to dismiss Frayne's reverse domain name hijacking claims, but the district court denied their motion to dismiss Frayne's other claims.

In January 2009, Thomas Garrett, a Virginia chicken farmer, publicist, and self-proclaimed "Hollywood insider," subpoenaed blogger Waldo Jaquith, who publishes cvillenews.com, a community news blog about Charlottesville, Virginia.  Garrett's lawyer served the subpoena in connection with his defamation lawsuit against The Hook, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville that also publishes content on its website.  For details on the lawsuit, see our related database entry, Garrett v. The Hook.

Jaquith blogged about the Garrett-Hook lawsuit on December 23, 2008.  His post, entitled "The Hook Sued For Defamation," gave background on the lawsuit, quoted Hook editor Hawes Spencer's comments on it, and explained the elements of a defamation claim.  He also made some critical comments about Garrett: 

I can sympathize with The Hook in their continued coverage of him. In writing this blog entry this afternoon, it’s impossible to ignore the really sketchy aspects about this guy. Seriously, look at this magazine that he claims to have been on the cover of. This was obviously patched together in Microsoft Paint. It just screams “bad photoshop job.” (The fact that the magazine doesn’t seem to exist doesn’t help any.) Then there’s his PR firm’s website, hosted on Angelfire. Remember them? The free website hosting service from the mid-90s? Used primary to host webpages for middle school girls professing their love for boy bands? That’s where his company’s website is, at the address http://www.angelfire.com/film/tgj/. Though the site claims to be at garretticonspr.com, that domain is unregistered. In short, Garrett looks like a train wreck in slow motion, and I get that The Hook is just watching and waiting for his big finish.

As a result of this post, Garrett's attorney served Jaquith with a subpoena as part of discovery in his lawsuit against The Hook.  Among other things, the subpoena requests the names and/or IP addresses for everyone who posted a comment to Jaquith's December 23 post.  (As of January 29, there were 81 comments to the post.)  It also seeks IP addresses for every viewer of the post and all logs generated in connection with it. Beyond that, it asks Jaquith for every email or written communication he has sent or received relating to the post or Thomas Garrett, as well as any post, comment, or other writing Jacquith has made on other sites.

The return date on the subpoena is February 2, 2009.  Jaquith has indicated that hiring a lawyer to quash the subpoena is beyond his budget, but he plans to fight the subpoena, acting as his own attorney.

Update:

01/31/2009 - Waldo Jaquith filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

02/13/2009 - Garrett filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.

03/05/2009 - Waldo Jacquith filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to compel.

5/22/09 - Waldo Jacquith reported that Garrett settled his lawsuit with The Hook, obviating the need to comply with the subpoena.