Paris Hilton sued Bardia Persa, Nabil Haniss, Nabila Haniss, and a number of anonymous defendants in January 2007 for copyright infringement, publication of private facts, and misapproriation of her right of publicity. The case revolved around a website, Paris Exposed, which offered viewers the ability to view personal materials belonging to Hilton for a fee. According to the complaint, the website contained Hilton's medical records, bank account information, credit card information, contracts and other legal documents, diaries, home videos, and photographs, which she had stored in a storage unit in California. Hilton alleged that the storage facility foreclosed on her unit because of a billing mix-up and then sold the contents at a foreclosure auction. The complaint alleged further that Nabil and Nabila Haniss purchased the materials for $2,775 and then sold them to the operators of the Paris Exposed website for a large sum of money.

Hilton's complaint, filed in federal court in California, alleged copyright infringement based on the defendants' unauthorized distribution and display of three works (apparently poems) created by Hilton -- "Love Letter," "I Can't Take It," and "How Would You Know?". Additionally, it alleged that the defendants had violated her privacy by publishing information contained in Hilton's medical and financial records, private home videos, audio taped conversations, diaries, and photographs, among other things. Finally, it alleged that the defendants misappropriated Hilton's right of publicity by using her name in the name of the website and displaying videos and other material containing her likeness for commercial gain.

In February 2005, when only the Hanisses had appeared in the action, the federal district court granted Hilton a temporary restraining, which barred the defendants from infringing her copyrights, publishing her private materials, and using her name and likeness. In late February 2005, the court granted Hilton a temporary injunction barring Bardia Persa from infringing her copyrights, publishing her private materials, and using her name or likeness. (Prior to the ruling, Hilton had acknowledged that the Hanisses had no part in operating the website.) Persa, apparently a resident of St. Kitts, never appeared in the action.

After the prelminary injunction issued, Paris Exposed shut down operations for a time, but then resurfaced at the same domain name. In June 2007, Hilton amended her complaint to drop Nabil Haniss from the lawsuit and to include claims against Green Brothers Limited, a St. Kitts company that allegedly was running the Paris Exposed website. The complaint also named three new individual defendants -- Karamooz, Thomas, and Green, who were alleged to be connected to the company.

In September 2007, Hilton settled with Nabila Haniss and dismissed the lawsuit against her. In October 2007, Hilton voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against the remaining defendants, none of whom ever appeared in the action. The Paris Exposed website is still up and running.

On February 6, 2008, Julius Baer Bank and Trust Company, a Cayman Islands banking entity, filed suit in federal court in California against Wikileaks, which is developing an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." Two days later, the bank and its Swiss parent company filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin Wikileaks from publishing or distributing copies of documents the plaintiffs claim contain "stolen or otherwise wrongfully obtained confidential and protected bank files and records."

On February 15, 2008, the court issued what it captioned as an "Order Granting Permanent Injunction." This order, which appears to be the result of a stipulation between the plaintiffs and Dynadot, Wikileaks' domain name registrar and web host, required that Dynadot immediately disable the entire wikileaks.org domain name and account and remove all DNS hosting records.

Later that same day, the court issued an Amended Temporary Restraining Order that enjoins Wikileaks and and "all others who receive notice of this order" from "displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, or linking to . . . all documents and information originating from [the plaintiffs' banks] which are internal non-public company documents and/or which contains private client or customer bank records."

As of February 28, 2008, the Wikileaks.org domain is still down, but the organization issued a press release through one of its mirror sites:

Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?

When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch. And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site. But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown.

On February 28, Julius Baer issued a press release stating:

It is not and has never been Julius Baer's intention to stifle anyone's right to free speech. Indeed, Julius Baer has specifically made no attempt to remove material on the website which refers to the organization but which does not include information personal to its customers. However, Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.

Updates:

The court has scheduled a hearing on the injunction for February 29, 2008 at 9:00AM.

2/26/08 - Coalition of media companies filed an Amici Curiae brief primarily addressing the issue of prior restraints

2/26/08 - ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion to intervene

2/26/08 - Public Citizen and the California First Amendment Coalition filed a motion to intervene that argues that the court did not have jurisdiction in the case, and therefore had no power to issue the injunctions

2/28/08 - Plaintiffs filed opposition to the motions by Amici and potential intervenors

2/28/08 - John Shipton, the owner of the wikileaks.org domain, filed a Notice of Intent to Appear and Joinder in Motions & Oppositions of Amici/Intervenors

2/28/08 - Daniel Mathews, a user of the site who was served with the TRO by the plaintiffs, filed a Memorandum in Opposition to TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction

2/29/08 - Court held hearing on the TRO; judge vacated the Permanent Injunction against Dynadot and tentatively denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

2/29/08 - Court issued Order Denying Motion For Preliminary Injunction; Dissolving Permanent Injunction; and Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule

3/5/08 - Plaintiff banks filed a notice of dismissal, without prejudice, as to all parties

Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller claimed that someone posted false statements about him on Wikipedia. Zoeller traced the IP address of the unknown author of the statements to a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm. Zoeller sued the firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He filed the suit anonymously, but media outlets quickly discovered his identity. In the complaint, Zoeller alleged that the Wikipedia entry falsely stated that he had abused drugs and alcohol and mistreated his family.

According to USA Today, the paragraph in question was removed, but the information had been picked up by other websites. The lawsuit said it falsely alleged that Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family.

Zoeller failed to trace the IP address to one specific person, and Josef Silny & Associates repeatedly denied that any of its employees had authored the statements. Several months after filing, Zoeller voluntarily withrew the lawsuit.

Zoeller did not pursue a claim against Wikipedia, and statements from his lawyer to the press indicate a belief that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred a lawsuit directly against the online encyclopedia.

As an act of "cyber-art," defendants 2600 Enterprises and Eric Corley registered the domain name www.fuckgeneralmotors.com and programmed the associated website so that it would automatically redirect to www.ford.com, Ford Motor Company's official website. Ford sued for trademark dilution, trademark infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. In its complaint, Ford claimed that the defendants' actions caused Ford to be "linked not only to the vulgar, strident criticism of a competitor, but also associated with the offensive, obscene word that is used in the domain name."

The federal district court in Michigan denied Ford's motion for a preliminary injunction, thus allowing 2600 and Corley to continue to link their website to Ford's. The court ruled, for purposes of the trademark dilution claim, that 2600 and Corley had not made a "commercial" use of the Ford trademark because it appeared only in the programming code that created the hyperlink to Ford's site. The court reasoned:

This court does not believe that Congress intended the FTDA to be used by trademark holders as a tool for eliminating Internet links that, in the trademark holder's subjective view, somehow disparage its trademark. Trademark law does not permit Plaintiff to enjoin persons from linking to its homepage simply because it does not like the domain name or other content of the linking webpage.

Based on similar reasoning, the court ruled that 2600 and Corley had not used Ford's mark "in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services," as required for the trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.

Ford initially appealed the decision, but later withdrew the appeal.

In February 2008, Donald and Terry Keller Swartz sued three anonymous defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy in a Tennessee state court. The Swartzes are a prominent couple in Old Hickory, Tennessee, where they buy and restore real estate, manage rental properties, and operate a halfway house for recovering substance abusers. They are also active in local politics and the Old Hickory Village Neighborhood Association.

In September 2007, an anonymous person created the Stop Swartz blog, which criticizes the Swartzes' real estate activties and other aspects of their personal and political lives. According to the Swartzes' complaint, the blog's author (Doe #1) and an anonymous accomplice (Doe #2) posted false and defamatory statements about them on the blog, including statements accusing them of committing arson, evicting renters "without a moments notice," and failing to record property sales in a local registry. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Does #1 and #2 invaded Terry Keller Swartz's privacy by re-publishing a statement posted anonymously on Craigslist.org (by Doe #3) that revealed that she was an "ex-addict."

Finally, the Swartzes claim that a posting on Stop Swartz invaded their privacy by encouraging readers to stalk them. According to the complaint, the post read:

When you see a Swartz, no matter how trivial it may seem, leave a comment. Extra points if you observe them outside the village. This serves two purposes: First, it helps us all to keep tabs on Don and Terry and to know what they are up to. Second, it sends a clear message to Don and Terry that their actions are not being ignored . . . . We will tolerate their crap no longer.

The complaint requests an unspecified amount of of compensatory and punitive damages. The Swartzes' lawyer told Tennessean.com that he intends to subpoena Google -- the owner of Blogger, which hosts Stop Swartz -- to uncover the identity of the blog's author.

Update:

09/18/08 - John Doe 1 moved to quash a subpoena the Swartzes issued to Google, Inc. seeking the identity of the anonymous blogger behind Stop Swartz.

11/3/08 - The Swartzes responded to the motion to quash.

3/13/09 - The court heard oral argument on the motion to quash and ruled that it would follow the standard set forth in Dendrite International v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and cited with approval in  Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 2009 WL 484956 (Md. Feb. 27, 2009). The court gave the Swartzes permission to amend their complaint and instructed John Doe 1 to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and/or to have the court perform First Amendment balancing under Dendrite. (A video of the hearing is available here.)

5/27/09 - Doe filed a motion to dismiss and to balance First Amendment rights.

08/13/09 - Swartz filed a response to the motion.

10/08/09 - The court granted in part and denied in part Doe's motion to dismiss and denied Doe's motion to quash.  The court also ruled that the issue was appropriate for interlocutory appeal.

In November 2007, Internet Solutions Corporation and its President and Director Ayman Difrawi (a.k.a. Alec Difrawi) sued Les Henderson, Daniel Bruce Scalf, Jeremy Scalf, Conrad Longmore, and a number of anonymous defendants for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and other torts. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint, dropping Longmore from the lawsuit. Henderson and certain other defendants operate websites aimed at increasing consumer awareness about Internet scams and so-called "phishing" activities.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Florida, alleges that the defendants published false and misleading statements about Difrawi and Internet Solutions on a variety of websites and other fora, including comments to the "Money Talk" blog on Tampabay.com. According to court documents, the defendants accused Difrawai of engaging in "on-going criminal activity in the performance of his marketing and consultant business" and suggested that "[Internet Solutions Corporation's] business interests are all fraudulent based on any association or business relationship with Difrawi," among other things.

Henderson and Daniel Bruce Scalf, who are representing themselves, filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. These motions are currently pending.

Update:

5/1/2008 - Judge ordered Difrawi to show cause why Jeremy Scalf and John Does 1-5 should not be dismissed from the lawsuit.

5/20/2008 - Judge dismissed Jeremy Scalf and John Does 1-5 without prejudice based on Difrawi's apparent lack of prosecution and failure to serve defendants in a timely fashion.

1/21/2009 - Case referred to mediation

5/28/2009 - Mediation set to begin Sept. 1, 2009.

David Gonzales, a freelance writer who blogs on the TheBadandUgly and Read It or Don't, received an email from a "legal representative" for Irish actor Colin Farrell alleging that a post he had written about the actor was defamatory. In his post describing the threat, Gonzales did not mention the content in his orginal post, nor did he reproduce the letter.

The original post is no longer available and it appears that Gonzales removed the post in reponse to the email threat.