On January 23, 2012, the Guadagnini Violin Shop (the "Shop") and owner Chunyee Lu filed suit in Illinois state court against a then-anonymous online reviewer. The complaint alleged that on January 21, 2011, a person using variations on the screen name "TruthTeller1790" posted negative reviews of the Shop on multiple user-review sites, including Yelp and Kudzu. All of the reviews were posted from the same IP address. Plaintiffs attached copies of the contested reviews to the complaint, and alleged that the reviews contained numerous libelous statements, such as allegations that Guadagnini Violin Shop performed unnecessary repairs and sold overpriced and falsely-identified instruments.

The complaint alleged counts of defamation (per se and per quod), false light, and tortious interference, and sought money damages.

On February 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, identifying Eric Swanson as "TruthTeller1790." According to the amended complaint, plaintiffs traced the IP address linked to the reviews to cable provider RCN Corporation, which identified Swanson as that address's subscriber. The amended complaint alleged that Swanson operated a competing Chicago violin shop.

In addition to the original four counts of defamation, false light, and tortious interference, the amended complaint added counts of violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, its Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and a common-law trade disparagement claim. The amended complaint also added requests for punitive damages.

On August 16, 2010, counsel for Colocation America and Mr. Albert Ahdoot sent a cease-and-desist letter to Archie Garga-Richardson, the founder and operator of ScamFraudAlert.com. ScamFraudAlert.com is a forum site that focuses on alleged Internet scams, security threats, and fraudulent practices.  The letter accused Garga-Richardson of trade libel and tortious interference with contractual relations, and demanded that he sign a statement (which was attached to the letter) retracting his comments.  The letter warned that if he did not sign the statement of retraction, Colocation America would file a civil complaint, which counsel also included with the letter, against him.

Update:

10/29/2010 - Colocation America filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

On April 6, 2010, Warranty Automotive Services Corp. filed a complaint in federal district court against unnamed Does for claims arising out of defendants' operation of a website at www.lifetimewarrantymyths.com. The Complaint indicates that plaintiff believes the defendants may be residents of Connecticut who own or are otherwise affiliated with a car dealership that is a former customer of Warranty Automotive Services, Premier Subaru, LLC of Branford, Connecticut. (Complaint ¶¶ 20-24.)

According to the Complaint, Warranty Automotive Services Corp. sells lifetime warranty services to automotive dealerships, which extend the manufacturer's limited powertrain warranty for new vehicles for as long as the original purchaser of the vehicle owns it. Plaintiff alleges that in January 2010, defendants began publishing a website at www.lifetimewarrantymyths.com that contains a number of false and defamatory statements about plaintiff's services, including allegations that plaintiff "has been guilty of causing 'consumer confusion,' . . . that plaintiff's lifetime warranty is and will be worthless. . . . that plaintiff has been 'fined' by the Federal Trade Commission, and that the warranty which plaintiff markets and sells is a 'marketing tool to compensate for inherent deficiencies in either [plaintiff's] product, their process or both.'" (Complaint ¶ 14.)  The Complaint further alleges that defendants, throught their website, make claims that plaintiff operates a fraudulent "pyramid scheme." (Complaint ¶ 15.)

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (i) defamation; (ii) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (iii) trade libel; (iv) unfair business practices in violation fo O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq.; and (v) violation of the Cyber Piracy Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (based on defendants' "labeling and positioning their website, 'www.lifetimewarrantymyths.com,' and by using metatags, and otherwise" in a manner alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights in its WASCOR trademark).

On February 26, 2009, Video Professor filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Cameron Montgomery, the owner of a website that labels itself "the Internet's ONLY Certified Review AuthorityTM for work at home opportunities" at www.ripoff-review.org.  The Complaint asserted claims for trademark infringement under state and federal law, commercial and business disparagement,  violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and tortious interference with business relationships.

According to the Complaint, defendant purchased the trademark "Video Professor" as a Google AdWords keyword. (Compl. ¶ 14)  As a result, whenever a consumer used Google to search for the words "Video Professor," an advertisement for defendant's website appeared, containing the statements "NEW VIDEO SCAM" and "Stop! Dont [sic] fall for this Scam.  Read this Report before you Buy."(Compl. ¶ 19)  Clicking on the link lead to a page on the website Ripoff-Review.org (which has, itself, been the subject of complaints on the Ripoff Report website) headlined "Online Fraud Investigator Dr. William J. Tomlin Reveals the Shocking Truth You MUST Know About Video Professor Program. . ." (Compl. ¶ 20). The website further claimed that "Dr. Tomlin" himself "was scammed by the Video Professor." (Compl. ¶ 22)  On the same page outlining claims against plaintiff's Video Professor program, defendant recommended its own "Top 3 Work at Home CertifiedTM Programs," along with links to the websites of these programs.  (Compl. ¶¶ 26-28)  The Complaint alleges that these three programs are under common ownership by defendant.  (Compl. ¶ 30)

On March 5, 2009, Video Professor filed a Notice of Dismissal stating that the parties had reached a settlement.  The statements about Video Professor no longer appear on the ripoff-review.org website.

Video Professor, a computer instruction software company, filed a lawsuit against the owners of Infomercialscams.com, a website which hosts anonymous reviews of infomercial products, and several related individuals asserting claims that the owners of Infomercialscams.com used the threat of negative consumer ratings to extort the company. 

Video Professor's ten-count complaint alleged that Informercial Consumer Awareness, the corporation which runs Infomercialscams.com, used Video Professor's trademarks in its metadata, such that any web search for the company would return a listing for Informercialscams.com and potentially negative consumer reviews. Compl. ¶ 47. According to the complaint, Infomercial Consumer Awareness allegedly offered Video Professor the opportunity to "delist" negative reviews of its product and to boost its rating on the site in exchange for a yearly payment of approximately $300,000.  Compl. ¶ 67.

Video Professor argued that, through these actions, Informercial Commercial Awareness and the associated individuals violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and misused the protections of the Communications Decency Act Section 230. Video Professor also filed for a preliminary injunction against Informercial Commercial Awareness. 

On July 8, 2009, Video Professor voluntarily dismissed the case against all defendants pursuant to an undisclosed settlement agreement. The Stipulated Notice of Dismissal as to Defendants Justin Leonard and Leonard Fitness, Inc. (the "Leonard Defendants") reserved to those Defendants the right to file a motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 

On July 22, 2009, the Leonard Defendants filed the motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions, asserting that Video Professor lacked any evidentiary support for its claims against those defendants.  Specifically, the Leonard Defendants claimed that Section 230 immunized them from liability for the allegedly defamatory postings, and that Video Professor's attempts to plead around Section 230 by asserting claims for extortion were insufficient as to the Leonard Defendants because Leonard had sold the web site in May 2008, before the alleged extortion attempts occurred.

The Leonard Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and sactions is still pending.

Dr. Antonio Alvi Armani, a California hair-restoration surgeon, filed a lawsuit in Florida federal court against Media Visions, Inc., and its president, Patrick Hennessey, the operators of The Hair Tranplant Network, a hair-loss forum.  The complaint, also filed on behalf of Armani Medical, Inc., claimed that Hennessey and Media Visions posted false comments about Armani and his practice on the forum site and created the false impression that posters on the site were bona fide disgruntled patients, when if fact they were either fictitious persons or undisclosed affiliates of doctors on the site's recommended list of "pre-screened" doctors.  The complaint included claims for deceptive and unfair trade practices, defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference with contract.

The complaint further claimed that the defendants failed to comply with an alleged "industry practice" of hair-loss forums:

It is industry practice and procedure to respond to this kind of posting by having the moderator of the website send a private message to the alleged "patient" requesting they privately submit verifying information to the moderator establishing their identity as a bona fide patient of the doctor in question. If the patient is verified as real then the clinic or hospital responsible for their treatment is allowed to post a response.

Compl. ¶ 50. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing Media Visions was immune from liability for user comments under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230).  The plaintiffs then withdrew their claims for trade libel and tortious interference with contract. They also filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing that the defendants were not immune under Section 230 because the defendants themselves posted defamatory comments. 

In a December 2008 ruling, the court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unfair trade practices claim, ruling that Section 230 did not apply because the claim was not based soley on "information provided by another information content provider."  In support of this conclusion, the court noted that the plaintiffs had alleged, among other things, that Media Visions created fake website content itself, failed to adequately disclose its sponsorship relationship with rival doctors, and refused to comply with the standard industry practice of verifying the identity of posters who have been called into question.

The court granted dismissal of the defamation claim on grounds that the plaintiffs had not complied with Fla. Stat. § 770.01, part of the Florida retraction statute that required them to give written notice of the alleged defamatory statements at least five days before filing suit.

The parties stipulated to dismissal of the complaint with prejudice in February 2009, apparently due to a settlement.

On May 16, 2002, Equidyne Corporation, a medical device company, sued twenty-one John Doe defendants (identified by pseudonyms) who posted statements about the company on the Yahoo! and Lycos financial message boards. Equidyne claimed that the defendants were current or former employees, that they signed confidentiality agreements, and that their postings to the websites violated their confidentiality agreements.  Equidyne also argued that the postings violated federal securities laws.

Equidyne obtained permission of the court to subpoena Yahoo and Lycos to obtain information that would identify who used the twenty-one pseudonyms.  Lycos identified five defendants.  Three of these defendants, including Henry Rhodes, moved to dismiss the complaint. Equidyne voluntarily dismissed its complaint against two of the defendants, but not Rhodes. The court ultimately granted Rhodes' motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Yahoo provided notice of the subpoena to its relevant subscribers by email.  One such defendant, going by the moniker Aeschylus_2000, filed a motion to quash the subpoena, invoking the First Amendment right to speak anonymously.  According to CyberSLAPP, the district judge applied the standard from Dendrite v. Doe and found that Equidyne had shown a prima facie case under federal securities laws and denied the motion to quash.  The court also denied a motion to reargue.  Aeschylus appealed to the Third Circuit arguing that the district court judge misapplied the Dendrite standard.

The case appears to have settled while on appeal.

On March 4, 2009, Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively "Monex"), two companies in the precious metals business, filed a lawsuit suit against Jason Gilliam, Richard Gilliam, and Steven Bowman for publishing allegedly defamatory statements on the website MonexFRAUD.com and attempting to extort money from Monex.  Monex initially sued in California state court, but the Gilliams removed the case to federal court.

In its complaint, Monex claims that the Gilliams and Bowman threatened to "continue to libel Monex on their website, . . . share information with government regulators, and . . . interfere with Monex's relationships with investors and banks" unless the company paid them $15 million dollars.  According the complaint, the defendants called Monex's president a "ruthless sociopath" and the firm's sales pitch "flat-out lies," in addition to other comments.  Monex alleges that the defendants made these false statements on MonexFRAUD.com and in comments posted on other websites, including YouTube and Digg.

In addition to defamation and extortion, Monex's complaint alleges cyberpiracy, unfair competition, racketeering, interference with contract, attempted conversion, trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade secret misappropriation. The Gilliams, father and son, allegedly lost approximately $32,000 with Monex.  On March 16, Jason Gilliam filed counter claims against Monex, including racketeering and breach of fiduciary duties.

On March 24, 2009, a federal court in California granted Monex's request for a temporary restraining order against the Gilliams and Bowman, expiring on April 7, 2009. The temporary restraining order prohibits them from taking any steps to extort money from Monex by (1) threatening to publish information about Monex on any forum or share information about Monex with third parties, or (2) threatening to defame Monex or its employees.  The order also barred them from retaining, disclosing, or using any Monex trade secret or proprietary information. 

The court also ordered the Gilliams and Bowman to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, continuing the terms of the temporary restraining order until judgment or dismissal.  If granted, the preliminary injunction would also bar the defendants from "publishing or republishing any negative statements about Monex on any website" and require them to "remove, from any website over which they have sufficient control, all negative material about Monex that they have published or republished there, and to stop using the word MonexFRAUD."  It would also bar them from operating the MonexFRAUD website or any "other websites critical of Monex."  

Update:

04/09/09 -The court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from (1) making any efforts to extort money from Monex by threatening to publish or share information about Monex or defame Monex or its employees; (2) operating www.MonexFRAUD.com or any other website using the Monex name in combination with any modifier that implies illegal, unlawful or unethical conduct; (3) publishing or republishing on any website, including www.MonexFRAUD.com, any statement that "Monex does not have title to or the ability to deliver precious metals sold under contract to any Monex customer; that Monex was expelled from the National Futures Association for fraud; that Monex operates a boiler room; that Monex violates any federal or state statutes regulating the business operations of Monex; that Monex has been charged by the Internal Revenue Service with tax evasion; and that Monex fails to accurately disclose to customers account and trading terms (collectively "Prohibited Statements"); (4) disclosing, using, or retaining any trade secret documentation or other proprietary information belonging to Monex.  The injunction also requires the defendants to remove all previously published Prohibited Statements within 24 hours.  It does not prohibit the defendants from (a) making statements regarding their own business dealings with Monex, including losses they have sustained; or (b) communicating with any governmental entity concerning matters within the scope of that entity's legislative, administrative, or regulatory responsibilities.

05/07/2009- Monex filed an amended complaint in district court.