IGIA, Inc., a company that sells vacuum cleaners and other houseware products, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Ed Magedson in federal court in New York over negative user reports published on the Ripoff Report, a consumer complaint website.  IGIA claimed that the reports constitued trade libel and unfair competition, and that Xcentric and Magedson engaged in extortion by operating the "Corporate Advocacy Program" (CAPS), in which companies accused of bad practices on the website can pay to have Xcentric verify published complaints and resolve disputes with consumers. 

IGIA filed suit after numerous negative reports about it appeared on the Ripoff Report website.  The complaint alleged that Xcentric and Magedson solicited negative reports and created fictional complaints and defamatory headings and titles, thereby losing the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).  It also claimed that operation of the CAPS program constituted extortion and wire fraud and violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Xcentric and Magedson failed to answer the complaint.  As a result, the court entered a default judgment in favor of IGIA.  Xcentric then moved to vacate the default judgment.  Subsequently, IGIA voluntarily dismissed the action.  It is not clear from the record whether this voluntary dismissal was the result of a settlement between the parties.

After voluntarily dismissing a nearly identical lawsuit in federal court in Florida, Internet Solutions filed a complaint against Archie Garga-Richardson in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging defamation, interference with business relationships, trade libel, and unfair competition under California law. Garga-Richardson moved to strike the complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

Update:

11/24/08 - The court issued a tentative ruling granting Garga-Richardson's motion to strike the complaint.

12/4/08 - Case dismissed.

1/2/09 - Internet Solutions filed a notice of appeal.

2/11/09 - Internet Solutions abandoned its appeal.

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie subpoenaed Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") seeking the identity of three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI.  The subpoena issued in connection with a defamation lawsuit Brodie filed against INI and John Doe defendants in Maryland state court. 

According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway.  Appellant's Brief, at 4-6.  INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties.  At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here."  INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech.  The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted.  On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters.  The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements. 

INI then requested the specific allegations of defamation related to the food-service establishment, and Brodie's counsel responded with a letter and a copy of the relevant forum threads indicating that the posters responsible for the statements about the Dunkin' Donuts were "RockyRacoon MD" and "Suze," who were not named as defendants in the complaint.  Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here," who had been protected by the court's earlier decision on reconsideration because their statements only related to the burning of the house.  INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  

INI appealed.  The Maryland Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case on December 8, 2008.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

In April 2007, building contractor RSA Enterprises, Inc. and its owner Raffi Arslanian sued Ripoff Report for defamation and trade libel over a negative report submitted to the consumer complaint website by a dissatisfied customer. In addition, RSA sued Google for disseminating the allegedly defamatory content as part of its search results. In August 2007, RSA filed a  a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, likely because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized both Ripoff Report and Google for the alleged misconduct. 

The disputed report remains online, but it is now paired with a rebuttal from Raffi Arslanian.      

Dennis Stewart sued the Oklahoma Publishing Co. and others for publishing the Oklahoma Department of Corrections sex offender registry on NewsOK.com, a regional news website.  The registry incorrectly listed Stewart's address as associated with a registered offender who had previously lived at that address.  The complaint included claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. 

An Oklahoma jury awarded Stewart $200,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the defendants could not be liable because the fair report privilege covered publication of the sex offender registry.

According to the MLRC, NewsOK.com voluntarily removed the registry in February 2002 because of problems with out-of-date addresses in the data provided by the Department of Corrections.

In February 2008, chiropractor Steven Biegel sued former patient Christopher Norberg and various John Doe defendants over a critical review that Norberg posted to consumer review website Yelp.com. According to the Complaint, the review accused Biegel of being dishonest and of engaging in fraudulent billing practices. Cmplt. ¶ 9.

After Biegel's counsel threatened to sue, Norberg removed his review from Yelp.  Biegel sued anyway, bringing claims of defamation and false light invasion of privacy against Norberg in his original Complaint and the (apparently identical) Amended Complaint.

In January 2009, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms.  Norberg replaced an earlier Yelp posting in which he said he'd been sued with the following posting:

A misunderstanding between both parties led us to act out of hand. I chose to ignore Dr. Biegel's initial request to discuss my posting. In hindsight, I should have remained open to his concerns. Both Dr. Biegel and I strongly believe in a person's right to express their opinions in a public forum. We both encourage the Internet community to act responsibly.

J.P. Weichel has been charged with two counts of criminal libel after allegedly posting comments about a former girlfriend and her lawyer on Craigslist.com's "Rants and Raves" section.  According to the Loveland Connection:

The case in Loveland began when a woman approached the Loveland Police Department in December 2007 about multiple postings made about her between November and December 2007. At least one post suggests that she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney, according to court records. There's also mention about a child services visit made because of an injury found on her child.

Police obtained search warrants for records from Craigslist.com and other Web sites and identified J.P. Weichel as the suspect, the former boyfriend of the woman, who shares a child with her. In August, detectives confronted Weichel at his workplace, where police said he admitted to the postings because he was "just venting," according to the court file.

It appears that Weichel has been charged under Colorado's criminal libel law, Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-13-105, which defines criminal libel as follows:

(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

The charges against Weichel constitute a class 6 felony that carry a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.  A hearing is scheduled for December 2008.

Update:

5/14/09 - Weichel pled guilty to two counts of harassment and received four years probation, a five hundred dollar fine, and sixty hours of community service.

Darrell Baylor, an Indiana insurance agent, sued two anonymous defendants who allegedly defamed him in on the Hey Martha forum, a cross-platform forum hosted by local newspaper The Herald Bulletin and other websites. Baylor alleged that forum users "Jack Deth" and "Brent Leroy" accused him of drinking alcohol, whereas he claims it is "a well known public fact that the Plaintiff has not had any type or form of alcoholic beverage since 1994."

Baylor subpoenaed The Herald Bulletin and its parent company Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., seeking the identities of the posters.  According to a Bulletin report, the paper filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the ground that it did not own or operate the forum and did not have the requested information. The paper also argued that the subpoena was invalid because it was overbroad and possibly violated the posters' privacy rights.

At a court hearing, the judge ordered the Bulletin to tell Baylor who had responsibility for the forum so that Baylor could serve a subpoena on that party.  Lawyers for the Bulletin identified Seattle-based Groupee Inc. as the operator of the forum.  The Bulletin's lawyers also argued that the court should appoint counsel to represent the anonymous posters in defending their right to remain anonymous.  

In September 2004, management consulting firm George S. May International Company (GSMIC) filed a  lawsuit against Ripoff Report, a consumer review website.  GSMIC's complaint included claims for defamation, "false descriptions and representations" in violation of the Lanham Act, trade libel, and deceptive trade practices.  It alleged that the site and operator Ed Magedson published false and misleading user comments accusing the company of "illegal and immoral activities." Cmplt.¶¶ 11-12. 

A federal district court in Illinois granted GSMIC's motion for a temporary restraining order.  The TRO prohibited Xcentric from "making, hosting or transmitting false or deceptively misleading, descriptions, statements or representations concerning George S. May, its business, owner, officers, employees and/or agents." GSMIC also requested a preliminary injunction, but the parties ultimately agreed to extend the TRO and the court never ruled on it.  In October 2008, GSMIC successfully moved the court for a finding of contempt of court for violating the TRO, and Xcentric subsequently removed eight postings that the court found violated the TRO.

Before resolution of a  complex series of motions, including one for partial summary judgment arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) protected Xcentric and Magedson from liability, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms.