In May 2006, Sandra Caron European Spa, based in San Mateo, California, sued a former employee and her husband for trade libel over critical reviews about the Spa on Yahoo.com and consumer review website Yelp.com.  According to court decision in the case: 

A Yahoo.com user posted a review of Caron Spa on January 17, 2006. It stated: "My first impression was its tacky d[é]cor. Then I encountered an extremely rude [E]uropean gentlemen, I believe this is the owner. From what I could see, the employees are miserable and tired. When I went into the steam room I saw mildew and brown spots on the walls.... I could not even sit in there. I went for my massage, and that was ok. But the room had a strange smell and the blankets were dingy. It was also very cold. I guess the owner does not put on the heat. There is just too much to go on about. I will never go there again, and I will make sure I will tell as many people as I can about the horrible experience that I had."

Another review, posted on Yelp.com under the user name "Pippi L.," appeared on March 5, 2006. Pippi L. wrote: "One star is even too much for this place. First of all, when I walked in there it looked lik[e] selling a whole bunch of useless things you'll wind up selling at a garage sale. The serv[ice was] horrible. I had this creepy old [E]uropean man helping me and he was just outright rude. [The] guy was acting as if he was doing me a favor by letting me come to his spa.... And what was with the 18 [percent] service charge? ? ? It's questionable that the therapists or the providers ever receive it. My massage was ok and that was the only highlight of this.... And their sauna and steam room ... was really disgusting. Their lounge are was just full of tacky decorations as what I've heard they've been around for a long time, and I really don't understand why.... I would never come back and much would rather go to the spa at my gym."

Sandra Caron European Spa, Inc. v. Kerber, 2008 WL 3976463, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

On July 31, 2006, defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law.  The trial court ultimately denied the motion, finding that Caron Spa had made a preliminary showing that the Kerbers conspired to commit trade libel with third parties not named as defendants in the case.  See Sandra Caron European Spa, 2008 WL 3976463, at *3.

The Kerbers appealed, and a California appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, albeit on other grounds.  The appellate court held that the statements in question were not made in connection with "a matter of public interest," which is required to trigger the protection of the anti-SLAPP law.  Id. at *4-7.  The court specifically rejected the argument that all "discussion on internet sites is protected speech" under the anti-SLAPP law.  Id. at *7. 

The case is currently pending in the trial court. 

Terry Hobbs sued Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines and her band mates in Arkansas state court for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Maines published a open letter on the band's website and MySpace blog that allegedly "accused [Hobbs] of committing the murder of Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore." Compl. ¶ 15.

In the letter, Maines (who was sued under her married name, Natalie Pasdar) encouraged readers to support the movement to free the so-called "West Memphis Three" -- Damien Echols, Jesse Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin –-three teenagers who were convicted of murdering three eight-year-old boys in 1994. The underlying story is chronicled in the HBO documentaries, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills and Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, which cast doubt on the guilt of the three teenagers.

In the letter, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit to the complaint, Maines claimed that DNA evidence from the crime scene and other evidence linked Hobbs to the murders rather than Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin. In so doing, she appears to have relied on Echols's petition for a writ of habeus corpus challenging his conviction. The complaint also alleges that Maines made defamatory statements at a "Free the West Memphis Three" rally.

Maines and her co-defendants removed the case to Arkansas federal court in January 2009. In their answer, Maines and the Dixie Chicks assert the fair report privilege as an affirmative defense, claiming that "[a]ll statements Defendants allegedly made were part of an official report and/or a public meeting."

UPDATE

7/20/09 - Hobbs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

8/21/09 - Pasdar filed a motion for summary judgment.

8/24/09 - Maquire, Robison and Dixie Chicks filed a motion for summary judgment, adopting the arguments made by Pasdar.

12/01/09 - The court granted summary judgment to Pasdar, Maquire, Robison, and Dixie Chicks and dismissed the case with prejudice.

04/19/10 - Press accounts report that the court ordered Hobbs to pay to Maines $17,590 to cover her legal fees. 

Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a Hong Kong-based electronics company, subpoenaed Yahoo! Inc. in connection with a lawsuit against 51 "John Doe" defendants alleging libel, trade libel, and violations of California's unfair business practices statute.  The lawsuit revolved around negative comments about Nam Tai posted to a Yahoo! message board pertaining to Nam Tai. After filing the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena in California directing Yahoo! to disclose its subscriber data (IP address) for "scovey2," one of the anonymous forum posters.

Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist from Foster City, CA sued Tai Jing and Jia Ma, the parents of a boy she treated, after they allegedly posted a negative review about her on Yelp!, a consumer review website.  Wong also named Yelp! Inc. as a defendant. The complaint contained three causes of action: first, a claim of libel against all three defendants; second, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Ma; and third, a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Yelp!  Wong's attorney subsequently told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would dismiss the claims against Yelp because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars recovery against the website for publishing third-party content.

Update:

01/21/2009 - Tai Jing, Jia Ma, and Yelp! Inc. filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

02/03/2009 - Wong voluntarily dismissed the claims against Yelp!

03/18/2009 - The court denied Tai Jing and Jia Ma's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law.

7/15/2009 -  Defendants filed their opening brief in the Sixth Appellate District.  Plaintiff responded on 9/14/2009 and Defendants filed their reply on 10/9/2009. 

11/9/2010 - The Sixth Appellate District issued a ruling dismissing all claims against Jia Ma and Yelp!, and both emotional distress claims against Tai Jing, under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.  The Court left intact the claim against Jing for libel.

05/12/2011 - On remand, the Superior Court awarded Jia Ma, Tai Jing, and Yelp! a total of $80,741.15 in legal fees for the claims dismissed under California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Yvonne Wong's libel claim against Tai Jing (as sole author of the Yelp! review) remains pending. 

In January 2009, Fashion model Liskula Cohen petitioned a New York state court for "pre-action" discovery from Google Inc. (on behalf of its subsidiary Blogger.com), seeking the identity of the anonymous operator of the Skanks in NYC blog.  The blog consists of only 5 posts, all posted on the same day in August 2008, and all making derogatory comments about Cohen.  According to court documents, Cohen alleges that the blog entries, including photographs, captions to photographs, and commentary describe her as a "skank" and a "ho," and otherwise depict her as sexually promiscuous, dishonest, and unclean.  She claims that these postings are libelous per se because they impugn her chastity and negatively reflect on her qualifications as a model.

On January 5, the court issued an "order to show cause," which required Google to appear before the court on January 26 for argument about whether disclosure of the blogger's identity should be ordered. 

Update:

1/26/09 - At a hearing, the court ordered Google to notify the anonymous blogger of the pending discovery request.

2/18/09 - Through counsel, the anonymous blogger filed a brief in opposition to Cohen's application for pre-action discovery. 

03/20/09 - The blog went offline sometime in March. The parties reportedly dispute what that means for the case.

8/17/09 - The court granted Cohen's petition, ruling that the statements on the blog were reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning.

8/21/09 - Press reports indicate that the anonymous blogger's name is Rosemary Port.

Thomas Duggan, who who hosts the "Paying Attention!" radio program on WCAP 980AM in Lowell Massachusetts, was sued by William DiAdamo, a local attorney, over statements Duggan made on his radio program and republished on his blog, Paying Attention! With Tom Duggan, and the website for The Valley Patriot, a monthly newspaper in North Andover Massachusetts.

According to plaintiff's complaint, on August 23, 2008, Duggan broadcast a segment about DiAdamo in which he falsely stated that DiAdamo was, among other things,  "being accused of throwing [a legal] case and has been fired by the City of Lawrence because he is being accused of throwing the case."

On November 24, 2008, Duggan served a special motion to dismiss under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law.  Plaintiff served his opposition to the motion on December 5.

Update:

1/12/09 -  Hearing on all motions, including anti-SLAPP, SLAPP-back, Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, and Motion to Authorize Release of Attorney-Client Privilege, are all scheduled for Monday, January 12, 2009, at 2:00 PM at Lawrence Superior Court.

2/23/09 - Court denied Duggan's special motion to dismiss the lawsuit under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law and granted DiAdamo's motion to dismiss Duggan's counterclaim.