Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is the webmaster of SomethingAwful, an online community forum with the catch phrase: "The Internet Makes You Stupid." A member of the community posted a link on the forum to a comic that depicted Jade Raymond engaged in sexual activities. Raymond is a video game producer for Ubisoft.

Ubisoft sent Kyanka a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that the comic be taken down from the site and threatening legal action. The letter claims that the comic infringed upon Ms. Raymond's "personal rights," caused emotional distress, and constituted trademark infringement, among other things.

Mr. Kyanka posted the letter on SomethingAwful in his own forum posting. In the posting, Kyanka claimed that he had no connection to the comic except that a link to it was posted on the forum. He said that he does not know who drew the comic and does not know where the image is located. Kyanka also sent Ubisoft's legal counsel a reply email, indicating that perhaps he did not take the legal threat seriously:

Please let it be known that hereforth I have read the express mail and email sent thereforth by Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP, and furthermore a declaration shall be expressed on the part of Internet User Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka that that forth herethrough I have conducted rigorous tests implemented through a vigorous barrage of legal studies, and furthermore hitherthrough these rigorous tests have therefore proven Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP shall be recognized as a man of the fag persuasion.

Pursuant to the United Dairy Council

Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka
Internet

The link to the comic is no longer on SomethingAwful, and Ubisoft has not taken any legal action against Kyanka.

Global Telemedia International (GTMI), a publicly traded telecommunications company, sued a number of anonymous users who posted negative comments about the firm and its officers on the financial message board Raging Bull, alleging that the posts constituted trade libel and libel per se.

On December 20, 2000, two defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint based on the California anti-SLAPP statute (California Civil Procedure § 425.16). This provision sets out a two-part test to gain protection, namely (a) the comments were posted in exercise of the defendants' free speech "in connection with a public issue", and (b) the plaintiff cannot show a probability of success at trial.

On February 23, 2001, the federal district court struck the case against the two defendants and held that speech can be "in connection with a public issue" notwithstanding the commercial character of the subject matter. The fortunes of a publicly traded company with a large number of shareholders is a matter of public and not just commercial concern.

The court also held that the posts were most likely to be taken by readers to be opinion rather than fact because they were "full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents," and "posted anonymously in the general cacophony of an Internet chat-room in which about 1,000 messages a week are posted about GTMI" (132 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267).

Update:

3/2/2001 - Court grants defendant Barry King's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law

7/20/2001 - Case dismissed for lack of prosecution

10/5/2001- Court awarded defendant Barry King attorneys fees of $17,969.25

1/22/2002 - Court awarded attorneys fees of $37,276.83 to defendant Ronald Reader

William A. Sheehan sued a number of credit reporting agencies, including Experian, in federal court in Washington, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In that litigation, Experian asserted a counterclaim against Sheehan for defamation, commercial disparagement and other torts based on the statements appearing on Sheehan's website.

According to documents filed in that case, Sheehan operated a personal website, on which he posted criticism of government officials and credit reporting agencies. His postings included comments about Experian, allegedly calling its employees "liars" and "scumbags." Sheehan also allegedly posted employees' home addresses and telephone numbers.

Experian moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prohibit Sheehan from posting on his website: (1) "any false or defamatory statements about Experian, its employees or agents"; and (2) "any other language specifically calculated to induce others to harass, threaten or attack Experian, its employees or agents, including, but not limited to, their social security numbers, home phone numbers and maps to their homes." In June 1998, the court denied the first part of Experian's requested order, but granted the second.

In July 1998, the court granted Sheehan's motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and denied Experian's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reaffirmed its prior ruling that the first part of the restraining order would constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech because it asked the court to prohibit speech that had not yet been found to be defamatory. It further held that the second part of the restraining order constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint because Sheehan's online speech was protected by the First Amendment since there was no evidence that he had published anything that could be deemed an incitement to imminent unlawful action.

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.

Crowley runs www.mortgagefraudwatchlist.org, a part-free, part-subscription database of mortgage fraud reports and information. She also is a moderator of AppraisersForum.com, a message board for mortgage appraisers. Crowley wrote posts on both sites criticizing eAppraiseIT, a mortgage appraisal management company. Her posts allegedly accused eAppraiseIT of demanding that appraisers engage in “unethical” activities and reported that she had received information showing that eAppraiseIT tampers with electronic appraisal documents. Her posts also allegedly urged appraisers not to send any documents to the company, suggested that eAppraiseIT pressures individual appraisers to manipulate appraisal values, and indicated that evidence of eAppraiseIT's inappropriate actions had been delivered to law enforcement and regulatory bodies.

EAppraiseIT sued Crowley over these comments in Florida state court, alleging defamation and tortuous interference with business relations. The company filed a motion to enjoin Crowley from discussing eAppraiseIT on her Web sites for the duration of the lawsuit, and the court granted EAppraiseIT an emergency hearing to consider the motion. The court denied the motion at the closing of the hearing, citing Florida appellate case law stating that courts may not enjoin "an actual or threatened defamation." The court earlier (page 10) indicated that the prior restraint doctrine under the First Amendment provided a strong argument against the requested injunction as well.

Update:

2/6/2008 - eAppraiseIT voluntarily dismissed the action. Marc Randazza has an excellent post with details.

After their son was expelled from the Hargrave Military Academy for stealing, Jerry and Melissa Guyles wrote a letter to other parents of Hargrave students, discussing their son's expulsion and their interactions with the administration, and expressing their view that the director of the School, Wheeler Baker, was lacking in leadership qualities. They subsequently set up a website called "HargraveHasProblems.com," on which they posted a copy of the letter and stories from other parents.

Baker and the school sued for defamation, interference with contract, and other torts under Virginia and North Carolina law. They sought, and the court granted (without notice or a hearing), an extraordinarily broad temporary restraining order barring the Guyles from contacting parents or operating the website. The plaintiffs then moved for sanctions against the Guyles for violating the terms of the temporary restraining order and to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.

The Guyles appeared in the action through counsel, and the ACLU filed an amicus curiae brief on their behalf, arguing that the temporary restraining order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The parties eventually settled the dispute in a court mediation session. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public. The court never ruled on the First Amendment question.

Patrick Atkinson is the founder and executive director of the God's Child Project, a charitable organization that provides health and medical care, food, and education to children in Guatamala. Dr. James McLaughlin and Roberta McLaughlin volunteered for the God's Child Project from July 1997 to March 1998, at which time they were terminated from their volunteer positions. After their dismissal, the McLaughlins made a number of allegations against Atkinson with Guatamalan authorities.

According to court filings, the McLaughlins then returned to the United States and began emailing the Project's board members and supporters claiming that they had been improperly terminated and questioning Atkinson's ethics and character. They subsequently sent additional emails claiming that Atkinson had sexually abused two boys and issued a press release claiming that Atkinson had been arrested on chages of sexual abuse.

The McLaughlins also created a website called "Friends of Guatemalan Children" in November 1998.  According to court filings, they allegedly made statements on the website that suggested that Atkinson misued funds, lied, molested children, and committed criminal acts in Guatamala and the United States, all in connection with Atkinson's previous work for Covenant House, another charitable organization that operated in Guatamala. The McLaughlins also contacted the North Dakota Attorney General's Office concering Atkinson and the Project and repeated their previous accusations of criminal conduct.

In an effort to resolve the present dispute, Atkinson and the God’s Child Project attempted to contact the McLaughlins in October of 2002, to request that they retract their website. At the time the McLaughlins received notice of the letter they were traveling in Argentina and Brazil. On November 7, 2002, an attorney responded on behalf of the McLaughlins and asked what portions of the website were false or misleading. On February 24, 2003, an attorney for Atkinson responded and included a copy of Atkinson’s unfiled complaint.

In July 2003, Atkinson sued the McLaughlins in federal court in North Dakota for defamation and interference with business relations. The McLaughlins moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court denied the motion in November 2004, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over them. The McLaughlins later filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations on defamation claims barred Atkinson's lawsuit.

In November 2006, the court ruled on the McLaughlin's motion for summary judgment, holding that the statute of limitations for a defamation claim begins to run from the day that defamatory statements are published to a website, and that making minor changes or updates to material on a website does not constitute a second publication of the defamatory statements. See Atkinson v. McLaughlin, No. 1:03-cv-091, slip op., at 20-22, 26-27 (D. N.D. Nov. 28, 2006).

The court concluded that Atkinson's claims based on statements made before July 28, 2001 were time barred. The court determined, however, that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the McLaughlin's made defamatory statements after that time. See id. at 31-32.

In May 2007, the parties settled the lawsuit, and Atkinson voluntarily dismissed the action.  The Friends of Guatemalan Children website appears to have been taken down as a result of the settlement. The homepage states:

This website and all of the content contained herein has been removed as part of an agreement resulting from a federal lawsuit alleging that the site contained false and misleading information about the individuals and organizations mentioned on this site.  This action is the result of successfull legal action taken by The GOD'S CHILD Project and Patrick Atkinson against the former owners of this web-site.

Permanente Medical Group, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) sued fomer employee Elisa Cooper in California state court in March 2005. The complaint alleged that Cooper breached a confidentiality agreement and invaded the privacy of Kaiser patients by posting on her personal blog documents containing the confidential health information of Kaiser member patients. Kaiser asked the court to enjoin Cooper from pubishing this information and to return any documents in her possession containing this information.

Cooper disputes that she published Kaiser internal documents. According to her blog, Cooper found a Kaiser document called the "Systems Diagram" on a public website long after she was terminated from her employment with Kaiser. The Systems Diagram apparently containd names, IP addresses, computer codes, and screenshots that Cooper considered a breach of HIPAA, a federal law that protects the confidentiality of patient health information. In her account, Cooper posted links to the Systems Diagram on her blog in order to bring the breach to the attention of government agencies, but did not host the materials.

On March 24, 2005, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring Cooper from disseminating patient information. On December 19, 2005, the court granted summary judgment to Kaiser on its invasion of privacy claim. On January 19, 2005, the court entered a permanent injunction barring Cooper from the posting health information of Kaiser's member patients and ordering her to destroy all materials in her possession containing this information.

On her blog, Cooper indicated that she would be appealing the ruling, but we have been unable to determine the status of her appeal.

The Barrett-Jackson Auction Company sued David Clabuesch a Michigan probate judge, and his company, ThumbCo, for breach of contract and defamation relating to actions and statements Clabuesch allegedly made concerning an antique car the company sold for him. Barrett-Jackson claims in its complaint that Clabuesch chained the car's wheels at the auction, put up a sign calling the sale void, taped a "grievance report" to the car, and posted defamatory comments on blogs, chatrooms, email lists, and websites stating that the company "quick gaveled the car" and sold it for less than it was worth. Clabuesch denies posting any comments.

Updates:

4/16/07 - Clabuesch filed a counterclaim against Barrett-Jackson for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and negligence.

6/8/07 - Barrett-Jackson filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims

1/9/2008 - Clabuesch filed a notice of settlement.