Kevin Vanginderen, a Cornell graduate, sued Cornell University seeking $1 million in damages for libel and publication of private facts after Cornell made available online an 1983 issue of the Cornell Chronicle newspaper that reported that Vanginderen had been charged for third degree burglary in connection with incidents on the Cornell campus.

Vanginderen sued in California state court, but Cornell removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Cornell then moved to strike Vanginderen's complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that Cornell's posting of the 24-year-old article was an act of protected free speech, and Vanginderen could not show a likelihood of success on his defamation claim because the article was true and based on information from publicly available court records.  Further, Cornell argued that Vanginderen could not prove his pubication of private facts claim because the article was a matter of legitimate public concern.  

The court agreed with Cornell's arguments and granted its motion.  The court ruled that because the records of the underlying case were publicly available and the article dealt with a matter of legitimate public concern, Cornell was entitled to make the anti-SLAPP motion. It further held that Vanginderen could not succeed on the merits of his defamation and publication of private facts claims because the story was substantially true and newsworthy. The court did not reach Cornell's argument that the statute of limitations barred Vanginderen's lawsuit, an argument which raised the interesting question of whether digitizing the original print article and publishing it online re-published the article for purposes of the statute of limitations.

Vanginderen has appealed the ruling. Cornell filed a motion for an award of attorney's fees in July 2008, which is currently pending.

While Cornell's motion to strike was pending, Vanginderen filed a second lawsuit against Cornell in California state court, also naming Cornell's lawyer Bert Deixler as a defendant. In the second lawsuit, Vanginderen alleges that Cornell and Deixler defamed him and portrayed him in a false light by filing records of Cornell's original campus police investigation as exhibits to its motion to strike in the first case. Cornell removed the second lawsuit to federal court (docket no. 3:08-cv-00736), where the same judge is handling the case. Cornell and Deixler filed motions to strike the complaint in the second lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP statute in June 2008.

Privé Vegas, LLC and two of its owners sued Las Vegas-based blogger Michael Politz in August 2008, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and "disaparagement" under the Lanham Act, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference with business relations, and extortion. The company operates a nightclub called "Privé" in the Planet Hollywood Casino in Las Vegas.  Politz operates the TheVegasEye.com blog, which covers goings-on in the Las Vegas entertainment and hospitality industries and provides restaurant reviews and reports on celebrity sightings and the like.

According to the complaint, filed in federal district court in Nevada, Politz published a post on July 23, 2008 reporting on a lawsuit Privé brought against four former employees. In his post, Politz allegedly made false statements about the lawsuit and about management "shaking down" employees for tip money to be placed in a "Slush Fund." Cmplt. ¶ 20. At the top of his post, Politz included a graphic of  Privé's trademark (shown on the right).

In addition, on August 12, 2008, Politz allegedly posted on his blog an anonymous letter to the State of Nevada Gaming Control Board, which purported to be written by a former employee of Privé.  The letter made a number of allegedly defamatory statements, including that Privé forced employees to work late hours without pay, that management sold drugs through the nightclub, and that management allowed underaged girls to enter the club and served them liquor. Cmplt. ¶¶ 25, 28, 30, 32, 33. At the top of the post, Politz included a graphic of the Privé trademark surrounded by a red circle with a line through it:

The nightclub filed suit in federal court after Politz did not comply with a demand letter sent in August.

Harold King runs the forum site "McAlester Watercooler," which he describes as a forum for citizens of McAlester, Oklahoma to "voice their views about the on-going City events." In August 2008, local District Attorney Jim Bob Miller filed an offense report with the McAlester Police Department against King.  Around that time, local businessman Wayne Stipe and his mother Billie Jean Stipe also filed a criminal complaint accusing King of slander and "imputing unchastity to females."  (In 2005, Stipe's uncle, Gene Stipe, filed criminal charges against King for defamation as well.)

On August 12, 2008, the DA's office issued a subpoena to King, requiring him to produce identifying information, including social security numbers, for about 35 people who posted under pseudonyms on the site.

According to press reports, King filed an objection to the subpoena in district court on August 15, but stated that he gave police the identities of two bloggers — himself and another blogger who had previously given him permission to do so.  Police have indicated that they likely will not seek additional information from King.

Oklahoma has a criminal libel statute, making libel "punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one (1) year, or by fine not exceeing One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both." 21 Okla. Stat. § 773. "Libel" is defined as "a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends." 21 Okla. Stat. § 771.

Update:

09/2008 - the case was moved to the District Court for Kay County.  Pittsburg County, where the case was filed, was the county overseen by District Attorney Miller.  Kay County District Attorney Mark Gibson took over the case for investigation.

09/2009 -  Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s office agreed to a deferred prosecution agreement with D.A. Miller on a charge of common barratry,” which is "the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings," Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 550.  As part of the deferred prosecution agreement, Miller agreed not to seek re-election in 2010. Additionally, District Attorney Mark Gibson charged Wayne Stipe with assault and battery in connection with a physical altercation with King.

James Sottile, the mayor of Kingston, New York, sued Clark Richters, an unemployed maintenance man and cable public access producer, for defamation after Richters posted an entry to his blog, Ulster County Politics, that incorrectly stated that Sottile would be indicted for bid-rigging. Sottile filed his claim in New York state court, asking for $100,000 in damages.

Richters took down the post (and his entire blog) and apologized to Sottile.  According to the Daily Freeman, Richters has moved to dismiss Sottile's claims under New York's anti-SLAPP laws.

Update: 

7/8/09 - Richters published a retraction and apology (updated page available here), apparently as part of a settlement.

Production company Vision Media TV (VMT) sued blogger Leslie Richard after she accused the company of scamming small businesses in her blog and on an Internet forum. VMT's complaint asked for $20 million in damages, alleging claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, and trade libel.

Richard, owner of "green" fashion company The Oko Box, criticized VMT in the The Oko Box blog and Co-OP America's Green Business Network Lounge. According to the complaint, Richard's posts said that VMT representatives had offered to interview her for an educational television program on eco-fashion. Richard said the representatives claimed the program was part of an evironmental series featuring former "20/20" anchor Hugh Downs. After further discussions, VMT asked Richard to pay VMT $22,900 in production costs and $3,000 for airfare in order to appear on the program. Richard then allegedly wrote postings on her blog and Co-Op America calling VMT a scam and accusing it of taking advantage of small businesses. Richard also reported VMT to the Better Business Bureau.

VMT filed suit in a Florida federal court in July 2008. Richard, a North Carolina citizen, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion also sought, in the alternative, to transfer the case to federal court in North Carolina. Richard argued that the Florida court's exercise of jurisdiction over her would violate standards of "fair play and substantial justice" because Richard could not afford to appear in a Florida court and could not travel in any case because of a medical condition. Richard filed an affadavit from her doctor stating that she was medically unfit to travel.

On October 09, 2008, VMT voluntarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In return, Richard removed the posts regarding VMT from her blog.

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.

On July 28, 2003, Atkinson sued the McLaughlins in federal court in North Dakota for defamation and interference with business relations.  For more information on the lawsuit, see the CMLP Database entry: Atkinson v. McLaughlin.

William Murawski, a frequent political candidate, sued Ron Gunzburger, who runs Politics1.com, for defamation and violating his First Amendment rights. Murawski alleged that Gunzburger violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to list his name as a candidatefor New York governor on Politics1.com. He also alleged that Gunzburger defamed him when he later added Murawski's name to the website by placing it close enough to a Communist Party candidate that search engine results for his name pulled up a snippet of text showing Murawski's name immediately after the words "Communist Political Organizer."

Murawski brought other claims against several additional defendants, including the New York State Board of Elections, several current and former New York government officials, Yahoo!, and IAC/Interactive Corp. (which runs Ask.com).

Gunzburger moved to dismiss the claims against him and for sanctions against Murawski.  The court granted his motion to dismiss, ruling that, because Gunzburger was not a government actor, Murawski could not bring a claim against him for violation of his First Amendment rights. The court rejected the defamation claim as well, ruling that Gunzburger did not identify Murawski as a communist on his website and that the displayed search engine results were not attributable to Gunzburger.

The court denied Gunzburger's motion for sanctions, however, because Murawski was representing himself pro se and may not have been aware of the possibility of sanctions when he wrote his original complaint.

The court also dismissed Murawski's claim against IAC/Interactive for reproducing Gunzburger's list and failing to remove Politics1.com from its directory, relying on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In addition, the court dismissed the claims against Yahoo! and several of the government officials.  The case is still pending against the New York State Board of Elections, but the remaining claims do not relate to online speech in any way. 

Direct sales company FreeLife International filed a defamation lawsuit against David Lucas Burge, a natural-foods activist whose website purported to expose FreeLife's health claims about its Himalayan Goji Juice drink. Burge's website, breathe.org, featured an in-depth investigative series that disputed FreeLife's contention that its goji drink retains enzymes that other goji drinks lack. FreeLife filed suit in Arizona state court in October 2007, and the defendants removed the case to federal district court in November. 

FreeLife also brought a breach of contract claim against Burge. FreeLife is a multi-level marketing company, and it operates primarily through person-to-person sales. It accomplishes this by allowing interested consumers to sell its goji drinks as "FreeLife Marketing Executives." The online sign-up process for the position includes a contractual provision precluding the signer from disparaging the company. Burge allegedly went through the sign-up process while gathering information on FreeLife and is bound by the provision, according to the company. 

FreeLife also named WhoIs Privacy Protection Services as a defendant. WhoIs is a company that allows website operators to hold domains anonymously by substituting its own contact information for theirs in domain registrations. FreeLife argued that WhoIs helped the operators of breathe.org to remain anonymous and thus assisted in the defamation. WhoIs was dismissed from the case on November 06, 2007, apparently by agreement of the parties.

Burge and the other remaining defendants, including Burge's company American Music Education (AME), filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion with respect to Noelle Boucherle and denied it with respect to Burge. It determined that he had consented to Arizona jurisdiction as part of the terms of the marketing executive contract with FreeLife, and that jurisdiction was appropriate because Burge sufficiently targeted his speech at FreeLife, an Arizona corporation.

The court also dismissed the motion with respect to AME and AME employee Gary Boucherle, but it allowed them to re-file their motions after limited discovery. After completing this limited discovery, the parties agreed the claims against Gary Boucherle would be dismissed. When AME filed a renewed motion to dismiss, the court again denied the motion.

Update:

10/1/2009 - The court denied Burge's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and the defamation claim.  The court granted FreeLife's motion for summary judgment on Burge's counterclaim.