In August 2005, Ridgefield New Jersey mayor Anthony R. Suarez sued Ridgefield resident Michael Mecca, who had allegedly posted defamatory content to the Ridgefield forum on NJ.com under the alias "Voter12345."  According to court filings, the allegedly defamatory content indicated that the mayor took part in a politically motivated raid on Mecca's house and was present when police showed up at the door to investigate an anonymous tip that he had an illegal apartment.  (App. Ct. Op. 2.)  At a deposition, however, Mecca admitted that the incident had been relayed to him by his friend, Ridgefield municipal prosecutor Marc Ramundo, and had not actually occurred in front of either Mecca or Ramundo.  According to the Appellate Court opinion, Mecca believed that the story was true.  (App. Ct. Op. 3.)

The trial court granted summary judgment to Mecca, finding that Suarez had "failed to show any harm to his reputation, or damages, resulting from the claimed defamatory conduct."  (App. Ct. Op. 2.)  Upon appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court's ruling, upholding the grant of summary judgment for Mecca. 

According to NorthJersey.com, Mecca has filed a malicious prosecution suit against Suarez.  The jury in that case found, however, that Suarez's defamation suit was not malicious.  

On May 27, 2003, former South Dakota Senator James G. Abourezk filed a defamation suit against Michael Marino, one of the co-owners of ProBush.com, a website that "offered unconditional support of the 43rd US President, George W. Bush," based on Abourezk's inclusion in the “Traitor List” posted on site.  Abourezk claims that calling him a traitor “is libelous per se under South Dakota law as it accuses the Plaintiff of a criminal act he did not commit.”  (Compl. ¶ 13.)  He is seeking actual damages of $2 million, punitive damages of $3 million, the removal of all references to him on ProBush.com, and a public apology.  (Compl. 4.) 

On April 29, 2005, Abourezk filed an amended complaint that include Jane Fonda and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz as co-plaintiffs, and Ben Marino, the other co-owner of ProBush.com, as a co-defendant.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based upon a failure to state a claim, asserting that their speech is protected by the First Amendment, arguing that including Abourezk on the “Traitor List” “does not qualify as a form of verifiable, literal falsehood that could lead anyone to believe that the website was stating a concrete, objective fact about [Abourezk].”  (Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss 18–19.)  This motion was denied on March 14, 2004 by Chief Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. 

The defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment.  According to Todd Epp, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, this motion was also denied.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.  Before this motion could be ruled on, however, the case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on November 23, 2005.  According to one of ProBush.com's lawyers, as reported by The Associated Press, the settlement amount was $1.

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.

Christopher  Comins, an Orange County businessman, filed a defamation lawsuit against Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis, who publishes a wordpress blog called Public Intellectual.  Comins objects to two of VanVoorhis' blog posts from June and August 2008, which reported and followed up on an incident that occurred in May, in which Comins shot two husky dogs believing they were wolves intimidating a group of cattle grazing on land being developed by one of his business partners. According to the Orlando Sentinel, both dogs survived, one with four gunshot wounds and the other with three.

VanVoorhis blogged about the incident after video footage captured by Irish tourists who witnessed the event appeared on YouTube. The six-minute video shows Comins shoot the dogs while a sizeable number of onlookers express increasing amounts of outrage.  It also shows the dog's owner, Chris Butler, run onto the scene in a frantic effort to save the dogs.  After the video appeared, an Internet backlash of sorts erupted on animal-rights websites and forums, according to the Sentinel. 

VanVoorhis' first post, called "Christopher Comins: Barbarian Hillbilly Dog-Assassin (w/Friends in High Places), took a highly critical stance on Comins' conduct and used an almost novelistic approach to recreating the timeline of events and the participant's emotions.  VanVoorhis embedded the tourist video in the post.

Comins' complaint alleges that this post "misrepresents the timeline, sequence and facts of this incident to cast Plaintiff in a false and negative light."  It also alleges the post "falsely claims . . . that Plaintiff continued shooting the dogs after their owner entered the pasture and notified Plaintiff that these were his pets."  The complaint includes claims for defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. 

VanVoorhis'  second post reported more matter-of-factly about the possibility of a follow-up investigation by authorities and, while mentioned in the complaint, doesn't appear to be targeted by the lawsuit.

Update:

9/20/2010 - Comins filed an amended complaint.

11/3/2010 - Comins filed a second amended complaint.

3/1/2011 -  VanVoorhis moved for summary judgment, arguing that Comins had failed to state a claim by not giving VanVoorhis pre-suit notice of the defamation claim as required by Florida Statutes § 770.01.  VanVoorhis also argued VanVoorhis's comments were statements of opinion about a public figure without actual malice, thereby barring Comins' defamation claim.  And VanVoorhis argued that his comments do not show the intentional and unjustified conduct Comins needed to support a claim of tortious interference with business relationships.

6/29/2011 - The Ninth Judicial Circuit granted VanVoorhis's motion for summary judgment,  finding that VanVoorhis's blog is a "medium" for purposes of Florida's defamation notice law, and that Comins had failed to give VanVoorhis the requisite pre-suit notice.

 8/18/2011 - Comins filed a Notice of Appeal to the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. In his subsequent appellant brief, Comins argued that VanVoorhis is a non-media defendant for purposes of Florida's defamation notice law, and thus should not qualify for such a notice requirement. Comins further argued that even if VanVoorhis did qualify for pre-suit notice, he waived such benefit by remaining anonymous and evading initial contact.

11/14/2012 - VanVoorhis filed an answer brief and cross-appeal brief. In his brief, VanVoorhis argues that the court correctly interpreted the defamation notice law, and argued that the claim against VanVoorhis must fail because the statements are opinion, Comins cannot prove actual malice, and Comins cannot prove any damages stemming from VanVoorhis's statements. VanVoorhis further argued that the tortious interference claim was a hidden defamation claim and should fail for the same reasons that the defamation claim should fail.

Tedd W. Mason, a high school football player, filed a lawsuit against his teammate and MySpace.com user, Matthew Grey, for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy, false light, and defamation.  Grey allegedly punched Mason. Mason brought claims of defamation and other speech torts over Grey’s alleged discussion of Mason’s health on Grey’s MySpace.com page. Mason also brought suit against Grey’s parents, Rick and Kasia Gay, and the Riverside Unified School District.

According to Mason's complaint, he asserts that Grey, without warning, struck Mason with “a minimum of six punches to the face and head” on January 4, 2005 in the North High football team room.  Following this incident, the Riverside Unified School District allegedly mandated that Grey satisfy an "Anger Management Requirement."  Mason also contends that Grey sent him a written apology. Mason’s eight-count complaint  alleges that on or about August 3, 2005, Grey, after completing his Anger Management course, posted a message on his public page on myspace.com, a post that reads in part “FUCK TEDD . . .  I found out that im inelligable [sic] today and for some reason Tedd Mason is in need of MRI for his ‘severe headaches’ and yet he can still go full speed at practice everyday. Odd isn’t it . . .”  Compl. ¶ 47.

Mason claims that this post attempts to expose him “to hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace by alleging that [he] is of a dishonest character,” and  “to demonstrate that [he] is a liar, and therefore is defamatory on its face.” Compl. ¶¶ 48-49.

In addition, Mason asserts a claim for public disclosure of private facts: the disclosure of his private “health condition.” Compl. ¶ 54. Further, Mason claims that this “public disclosure was an unfair and inaccurate depiction” and therefore asserts a claim of false light invasion of privacy. Compl. ¶ 62.

Mason claims that employees of Riverside Unified School District “disclosed private facts about [his] health condition to . . . persons not authorized to receive such information, including . . . Matthew Grey, . . . Kasia Gay, and… Rick Gay,” and he asserts a claim of public disclosure of private facts. Compl. ¶ 81.

Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay each answered Mason’s complaint on Feb 16, 2006. They each put forth thirteen affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, estoppel, unclean hands, justification, and assumption of risk.

On August 20, 2007 Mason settled his claims of negligence and public disclosure against Riverside Unified School District for $75,000. Kasia and Rick Gay moved for summary judgment on August 24, 2007, arguing that Mason's settlement with the school gave them a right of off set. This motion was denied. On July 21, 2008 Mason settled his claims against Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay for an undisclosed amount.  

The warden of a Virginia prison sued two Connecticut newspapers for libel in a Virginia court, asserting that they published defamatory articles about him on their websites. In his complaint, Young asserted the newspapers implied he was racist and that he encouraged guards to abuse inmates. Compl. ¶ 7.

On Oct. 4, 2000, the New Haven Advocate and the Hartford Courant filed motions to dismiss the suit on the grounds that a Virginia court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Connecticut newspapers. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied the motion, stating the court could exercise jurisdiciton under Virginia law because the "defendants' Connecticut-based Internet activities constituted an act leading to an injury to the plaintiff in Virginia."

The newspapers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the lower court's decision. In its opinion, the court said the Connecticut newspapers could not constitutionally be subject to jurisdiction in a Virginia court because "they did not manifest an intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia audience."

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear Young's appeal on May 19, 2003.

Doherty Enterprises, Inc., a large Applebee's restaurant franchisee with approximately 80 restaurants in New Jersey and neighboring states, sued Michael Murray for defamation and trade libel over a critical comment posted to a September 2008 article on NorthJersey.com, the online edition of The Record. 

The article in question contained an interview with Ed Doherty, the founder and president of Doherty Enterprises. In the interview, Ed Doherty stated that he believes he “treat[s employees] with dignity and respect and provide[s] a great opportunity for them to have a good job . . . . I want the people that work for me never to want to leave me.” When asked what his "recipe for success was," Doherty replied: “Don't lie, don't steal. And treat everybody the way you want to be treated. If you do that, you've lived a good life. . . . It's so simple.” 

Michael Murray posted the following comment:

I find this article quite disturbing with respect to how Ed Doherty represents how he treats people. I am an advocate involved in a sexual harassment case and have arbitration transcripts which demonstrate that women . . . are routinely sexually harassed and that this behavior is condoned by high level management at Doherty Enterprises right up to the top. His General Managers & Area Managers commit perjury, obstruct and/ or [sic] ignore sexual harassment claims with immunity
[sic]. This man and his rhetoric are repugnant and fly in the face of the facts. . . . . Additionally, any reader who has a daughter, wife etc. [sic] working for Doherty are more than likely being subjected to similar treatment. . . .

At the time, Murray, a non-lawyer, was representing his daughter in the arbitration of a sexual harassment case against Doherty Enterprises, in which she claimed that she was sexually harassed by managers and employees of the Applebee’s at which she worked.  In late 2007, Murray had rejected a settlement offer on behalf of his daughter.

Doherty Enterprises filed suit, and both parties moved for summary judgment in April 2009.  In May 2009, the court granted summary judgment to Murray, dismissing all of the claims against him.  The court ruled that certain of the statements -- such as that Doherty's rhetoric was "repugnant" and that others were "likely being subject to similar treatment" -- were "pure opinion" subject to an absolute privilege. 

The court determined that the remaining statements related to a matter of public concern and that Doherty became a public figure for purposes of New Jersey law when he gave an interview with The Record, thus “voluntarily and knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that one in his position should reasonably know would implicate a legitimate public interest, engendering the real possibility of public attention and scrutiny.”  Therefore, the court held that the "actual malice" standard applied. Applying this standard, the court found that Murray had sufficient evidentiary support from the arbitration proceedings "to defeat any claim that these statements were made with the recklessness required."

The court refused to dismiss Murray's counterclaim for abuse of process, finding that factual issues remained about whether Doherty Enterprises brought the lawsuit with an "ulterior motive" to allegedly punish Murray refusing to settle the arbitration proceeding. 

According to one press account, Doherty Enterprises and Murray subsequently settled for an undisclosed amount.

On March 5, 2008, Cintas, a Fortune 500 company and manufacturer of uniforms, sued several unions, including UNITE HERE, Change to Win, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, including Bruce Raynor, Ahmer Qadeer, Keith Mestrich, Elizabeth Gres, Peter Demay, Katie Unger, Stefan Antonowicz, and Does 1-100.  The complaint alleged violations of the RICO Act, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and defamation arising out of the defendants' activities online.  

Cintas claims that the defendants first attempted to interfere with their business and exploit fear of economic loss by disseminating false information through print and over the Internet.  Cintas next alleges that defendants made it clear that their interference would only cease if entered into an agreement with defendants regarding union representation.  

The defendants set up several websites that criticized Cintas, including cintasexposed.org (targeting customers), uniformjustice.org (targeting employees) and notonmytrack.info (targeting NASCAR fans).

On June 20, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint arguing that Cintas had failed to state any valid federal claims.  In addition, they argued that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.  Specifically, defendants argued that the trademark allegations, including those directed at their website, cintasexposed.org, must fail because their use of the Cintas mark was not commercial and posed no risk of confusion.

On March 9, 2009, the district court dismissed all of Cintas' federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state law claims.  The court dismissed the trademark infringement claim, agreeing that there was no risk of consumer confusion with the use of "Cintas" in cintasexposed.org.  The court noted the obvious critical bent of the website and a disclaimer stating: "CintasExposed.org is an independent website posted by the labor union Unite. It contains criticism and information about the uniform and facilities services rental company Cintas . . . ." 

The court also dismissed the trademark dilution claim, finding that links to the UNITE HERE website, which in turn linked to the UNITE HERE store, did not make the use of the Cintas mark commercial. The court dismissed the cybersquatting claim by noting the defendants were not using the URL as part of a bad faith effort to make a profit.

Cintas filed a notice of appeal in late March 2009.