Former Miss West Virginia, Allison Williams, filed a lawsuit against approximately sixty defendants, including Joseph Vitagliano, who operates Taxi Driver, a website that focuses on celebrity gossip and regularly features nude or semi-nude photographs of female celebrities. Williams alleges that Vitagliano defamed her by posting an advertisement on his website that falsely indicated that she, as Miss West Virginia, participated in a pornographic video that was available for download. 

Williams' complaint alleges defamation, false light invasion of privacy, misappropriation of name and likeness, and violation of the right of publicity. Williams seeks permanent injunctive relief.

According to filings in the case, Vitigliano's website contained advertisments for pornographic websites, including an advertisement for a site that allegedly offered to sell a pornographic video described as depicting "Allison Williams, Miss West Virginia."  Williams avers that she never appeared in the sex tape advertised on Taxi Driver, and has never appeared in any other pornographic video.

On August 31, 2007, the Court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Vitigliano because he had not purposefully availed himself of contacts in West Virginia.  The suit continues as to a number of the other defendants.

The case is also noteworthy because the court allowed plaintiff to serve litigation documents on one of the foreign defendants by email (see Internet Cases blog on this).

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.

Milan Jankovic, aka Philip Zepter, along with two of his businesses, Fieldpoint B.V. and United Business Activities Holding, filed suit against International Crisis Group (ICG), claiming defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Non-profit ICG publishes newsletters, reports, and other documents aimed at influencing policymakers worldwide, apparently focusing on the prevention of armed conflict. Zepter's claims arose from ICG documents -- two reports and an e-mail -- that accused Zepter and his business ventures of improper ties to deceased Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

On May 1, 2006, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims as to the e-mail and one of the reports (“Report 141”) because the statute of limitations had run. It dismissed the claims involving the other document (“Report 145”) as to Zepter's businesses because the report did not concern them and as to Zepter himself because the disputed statements were not defamatory as a matter of law. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove ICG employee James Lyon, who had sent the disputed e-mail, after the District Court found that Lyon's presence in the case destroyed diversity for the purposes of jurisdiction.

On July 24, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals upheld the district court's finding that the case in its original form failed due to lack of jurisdiction over Lyons. It also upheld the dismissal of all claims relating to the e-mail and Report 141 due to the statute of limitations, as well as Zepter's businesses' claims arising from Report 145.

However, the Court of Appeals held that Zepter had established a prima facie defamation case regarding certain statements in Report 145. The opinion discussed three disputed portions of Report 145 separately. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims as to the first portion, which had implicated another Zepter venture -- Zepta Banka -- but not Zepter himself. Due to the size and scope of Zepter's business enterprises, spanning more than 50 countries on five continents, the court found that statements regarding Zepta Banka did not concern Zepter.

According to the court, the second statement in Report 145 could give the impression that Zepter was a “crony” of Milosevic and thus was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defamation. Though the Court of Appeals did not discuss them, it revived plaintiffs' false light and tortious interference claims as to the second statement in Report 145.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims regarding the third statement in Report 145 because the statement referred to a former Zepter employee rather than Zepter himself.

The net result was that all claims against ICG were dismissed except for those involving the second statement from Report 145, which were remanded to the district court. ICG raised a number of defenses not reached by the district court or on appeal -- Opinion and Fair Comment Protection, the Fair Report Privilege, the Neutral-Reportage Doctrine -- which will be considered in the lower court.

Update:

7/24/2007 - Case remanded to district court.

5/13/2008 - ICG filed memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss first amended complaint.

5/23/2008 - Jankovic filed memorandum in opposition to ICG's motion to dismiss.