X-Files star David Duchovny filed a lawsuit against British publication the Daily Mail over an article published on the newspaper's website that accused him of cheating on his wife Tea Leoni with his tennis instructor.  The Daily Mail took down the article shortly after its publication, but other news sites picked it up and republished it, according to Reuters.

The Daily Mail published a retraction in November 2008, indicating that the original story was inaccurate.  This may mean that the parties have settled or are close to a settlement.

GW Equity, LLC, a mergers and acquisition firm that acts as a consultant to middle-market business owners who seek to sell or merge their businesses, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in Texas federal court for defamation and other torts over reports published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.

In its complaint, GW Equity alleged that Ripoff Report published false and defamatory reports submitted by users without verifying their accuracy. In an effort to circumvent the immunity for website operators provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), GW Equity further alleged that Xcentric and Magedson created, developed, and published defamatory titles, headings, and metatags for these reports concerning GW Equity. It also claimed that Ripoff Report generated defamatory content by providing users with drop-down boxes containing defamatory tags, such as "corrupt companies," which were applied by users to reports about GW Equity.

After completing discovery, Xcentric and Magedson moved for summary judgment. In October 2008, a federal magistrate judge issued his report on the motion, recommending that the district court grant Xcentric and Magedson's motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge found that Xcentric and Magedson were entitled to the protection of CDA 230 because GW Equity had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact concerning their development or creation of defamatory content. The court indicated that providing drop-down boxes with "a broad choice of categories from which a user must make a selection in order to submit a report [was] not sufficient" to deprive the defendants of immunity, especially because they "did not solely provide users with a selection of categories that were negative and/or defamatory in nature." Slip op. at 7, 10.

The magistrate judge also found that there was no competent evidence that any Ripoff Report employee ever wrote or significantly edited report titles and headings, or changed the category tag on a user report. See id. at 9-10. The magistrate relied in part on a report produced by Xcentric showing IP addresses and locations connected with the reports and rebuttals about GW Equity. This report showed the IP addresses of Ripoff Report servers and machines used by Ripoff Report staff, and noneof those IP addresses matched up with the IPs of a report or a rebuttal about GW Equity. See id. at 9.

Finally, the magistrate rejected GW Equity's argument that Ripoff Report's "Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Satisfaction Program" took the website outside of CDA 230. According to GW Equity, under this program Ripoff Report will, for a fee, investigate "rip-off" reports targeting member companies and post prominent rebuttals to those reports. The court indicated that "it is not a bar to immunity for an Internet provider to refuse to remove defamatory material created by a third party, or to otherwise use it to their advantage, even though the Internet provider’s conduct may be considered reprehensible and offensive." Id. at 12.

GW Equity has filed objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, and the district court had not ruled on those objections as of November 14, 2008.

Update:

01/09/2009 - The district court affirmed the magistrate's report and recommendation and granted Xcentric and Magedson's motion for summary judgment.

Certain Approval Programs, LLC and its CEO Jack Sternberg sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in Arizona federal court for defamation and other torts over a user report published on the Ripoff Report website.

Ripoff Report is a website that allows users to post reports about individuals and companies that they believe have "ripped them off" or treated them unfairly.  According to Certain Approval's complaint, the website solicits and encourages third parties to submit these reports, does not attempt to verify their truth before publishing them, and refuses to remove any report on the basis that it is false and defamatory.  Cmplt. ¶¶ 16-18. Xcentric and Magedson also allegedly offer a "Corporate Advocacy Program," in which companies or individuals that have been defamed on the website can pay large sums of money to have the website investigate the defamatory posts about them.  According to the complaint, in return for these payments, the website will amend false and misleading reports to include Magedson's findings that the business or individual has excellent customer service and that the reports were false.  Id. ¶ 21.

Certain Approval and Sternberg allege that an anonymous user of the website posted a defamatory report about them in August 2007, in which the user claimed that their "Buyers First" real estate investor education program was illegal and a "scam," and that Mr. Sternberg had been arrested for fraud in the 1990s and owed millions of dollars as a result.  See id. ¶¶ 38, 51. 

In an effort to circumvent the immunity for website operators provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Certain Approval and Sternberg further allege that Xcentric and Magedson added their own defamatory content to the report by doing the following six things: 

1. adding the words "Rip-off Report:" to the title created by the site user and using it to create a "title meta tag" (which generates the url for the webpage and the title for that page that appears in search engine results);
2. using information submitted by the site user to generate a "description meta tag" (which generates the two lines of text displayed below the title in search engine results);
3. creating "keyword meta tags" for the report using the words "rip-off, ripoff, rip off, Jack Sternberg Ken Preuss Buyers First, Company, Con Artists"; 
4. providing the site user with the defamatory category "Con Artists"; 
5. designing and publishing the website's logo that appears on each report and says "for consumers, by consumers," "Ripoff Report," and "Don't let them get away with it . . . let the truth be known!"; and
6. creating and registering the domain name of the website -- www.ripoffreport.com.

Certain Approval and Sternberg allege that Ripoff Report's own content falsely suggests that they "rip off" consumers and are trying to "get away with it." Id. ¶ 51.

Xcentric Ventures and Magedson filed an answer in September 2008, and the parties are headed into the discovery phase of the lawsuit.

Update:

4/13/09 - The court dismissed Sternberg's misappropriation of name and likeness claim, holding that it failed to state a claim under Arizona law. 

5/20/09 - Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

6/1/09 - Plaintiffs filed a notice stating they had reached a settlement with defendants Xcentric Ventures and Edward Magedson. The plaintiffs noted they would continue to pursue their claims against John or Jane Doe.

Lawyer Edward T. Saadi brought a defamation lawsuit against Pierre Maroun -- Saadi's cousin -- and Hala Fakhre Maroun over statements they allegedly posted to blog biggestloosers.blogspot.com (defunct).  According to Saadi's complaint, the Marouns' blog postings accused him of engaging in various forms of criminal and unethical behavior.

Saadi filed his complaint against Pierre, Hala, and several John Doe defendants in Florida federal court. As the case progressed, Saadi filed amended complaints that extended Saadi's defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims to other forum and website postings. An article posted to Alccresearch.com (defunct) allegedly accused Saadi of being associated with terrorism and with Hezbollah.  Saadi also added Maroun's International, LLC as a defendant. 

Pierre, Hala, and Maroun's International filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the disputed statements were statements of opinion and that Saadi had not properly alleged that they had authored the statements. On September 9, 2008, the court denied their motion to dismiss the defamation claim, finding that "statements that Plaintiff is a mentally unstable stalker, a criminal, and that he has received gifts paid for with money stolen from the Lebanese governemnt, as well as statements that suggest that Plaintiff falsely purports to have a law degree and has committed statutory rape, imply factual knowledge."  Slip op. at 5.  The court emphasized that the Marouns combined these statements with claims that the information was the result of "thorough investigation" and  posted them on sites that proclaim "OUR STORIES ARE TRUE."  Id. at 5-6.  Accordingly, the court held that the statements "assert facts that reasonably can be construed as defamatory." Id. at 6. 

The court granted the motion to dismiss the infliction of emotional distress claim against Hala, but denied the motion with respect to Pierre and Maroun's International.  The court did, however, grant their request for a more definite statement with respect to this claim. On September 22, Saadi filed his third amended complaint.

Update:

01/19/2009 -  Saadi voluntarily dismissed Hala Fakhre from the lawsuit.

03/02/2009 - Pierre Maroun filed a motion for summary judgment.

10/01/2009 - After completion of the trial, the court dismissed the claims against Maroun International. With respect to Pierre Maroun, the jury returned a verdict for Saadi, awarding $90,000 in damages. 

11/02/09 - The court granted in part and denied in part Saadi's motion for a permanent injunction.  The court ordered Maroun to "remove all references to Edward T. Saadi from the internet postings that are reflected in Trial Exhibits 19 and 2o" and "enjoined [him] from republishing in any manner any statement that Edward T. Saadi is a terrorist."  Otherwise, the court denied the motion.

02/05/10 - The court upheld the magistrate judge's ruling rejecting Saadi's motion asking the court to direct an assignment of Maroun's interest in a limited liability corporation, Maroun's International, LLC.  The magistrate found, and the court agreed, that the assignment would not bring Saadi any relief and was thus "futile and would waste the Court's resources."

Joseph Pilchesky, operator of the website Doherty Deceit, sued Judy Gatelli, the President of the Scranton, Pennsylvania City Council, for defamation after she canceled a city council meeting in response to what she called threats of violence posted on the website.  Gatelli filed a counterclaim for defamation, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Pilchesky, his wife, and more than ninety anonymous posters to a Doherty Deceit message board.  Gatelli petitioned the Pennsylvania state court to compel Pilchesky to reveal the identities of the anonymous posters.  Mr. Pilchesky objected, indicating that he would not disclose the identities of his site users.

Paul Levy of Public Citizen appeared on behalf of seven anonymous defendants and also opposed Gatelli's petition for discovery.  The court initially ruled that Gatelli's request did not provide sufficient information to warrant disclosure.  In response, Gatelli filed an amended petition that listed forty-two posters and identified specific statements by each. She also submitted an affidavit stating that the identified statements were false and that she had suffered reputational and emotional injury as a result of their publication.

In a second ruling, the court ordered Pilchesky to reveal the identities of six of the posters, but denied disclosure as to all other posters. The court applied the standard for disclosure set forth in Polito v. AOL Time Warner, 2004 WL 3768897 (Ct. Comm. Pls. Jan. 28, 2004), which requires a plaintiff to show the following things before obtaining compelled disclosure of an anonymous commenter's identity: (1) that she satisfactorily states a cognizable claim under Pennsylvania law; (2) that the identifying information is directly related to her claim and fundamentally necessary to secure relief; (3) that she is seeking the requested information in good faith and not for some improper purpose such as harassing, intimidating, or silencing her critics; and (4) that she is unable to discover the identity of the anonymous speakers by alternative means.  Slip. op. at 4-5.  This test appears to require only valid allegations, not evidence to support each element of the underlying defamation claim.

Applying this standard, the court determined that six statements alleging "serious sexual misconduct" formed the basis of a cognizable defamation claim under Pennsylvania law, and ordered disclosure of the identities of the authors of those statements.

Pilchesky has indicated that he will appeal the judge's order.