Kimball Bradley, an executive at Reunion Industries, Inc., a publicly traded manufacturing company, sued Herbert Conner, an attorney who previously represented Reunion, over posts Conner allegedly made on a Yahoo! Finance Message Board that Bradley believed defamed him and cast him in a false light.

According to allegations in the complaint and other filings in the case, beginning in August 2005 and continuing through March 2006, Conner, using the alias “pun2dex,” posted numerous messages on the Yahoo! Finance Message Board designated for Reunion. Bradley alleges that Connor posted the following statements:

• On August 10, 2005, pun2dex stated: “As badly as this company is run, there is no shutdown. Richard Conway (of Lc Capital Masters) is in and will be heard. The company has fresh cash and is buying raw material. It will show an operating profit this quarter primarily due to the sales in China by its CPI sub. So long as the bond holders sit still, there could be some upside.”


• On September 1, 2005: “[Reunion] operates with a lockbox. It has no choice but to pay down the Bank debt. The Bondholders are stuck. The Bank takes all the excess cash and leaves only enough to buy material for production. Leadership is lacking, but well paid anyway. Check the identity of majority ownership in relation to the CEO and COO. I do not know how the outside directors sleep. There is a large lawsuit looming if someone should have the energy to file it.”


• On September 20, 2005: “Richard Conway is running Reunion. At last someone with an IQ. He paid hard cash. The banks have been backed off and RUN will report around 20 cents, if it so chooses in October, not from operations, but debt reduction. They can now buy raw steel and make product. The Oneida division will be sold and the cylinder and pressure vessel business will be advanced. Conway will have a $4.00 stock in 18 months.”


• On September 21, 2005: “I have followed the company for a very long time and read the filings. The Board is becoming concerned since Worldcom, in light of Sarbox, and well they should. . . .Kimball Bradley [Plaintiff] is still called COO, C E Bradley is still CEO, but the latter is CEO in paycheck only, and will soon be resigning at the request of Mr. Conway. The only way out for [Reunion] is to do what Conway suggests. Look for him to buy the junk bonds, reduce and control the debt and spur the growth of the profitable divisions. Check LC Capital Masters and Lampe, Conway Fund Group. Run (sic) needs management with a higher IQ than club handicap, with Conway, they get one, even if K. Bradley stays in as COO or even moves to CEO. He will not be calling the shots, except on the Golf Course.”


• On January 1, 2006: “. . .the story is all of failure since the young Bradley took over and will not stop until he is long gone. Until that day, this company and this stock will bounce a little, but is going nowhere.” On January 24, 2006: “If you are intent on paying salaries, you must sell something in the context of this company. Check the President, who is a member of the YPO. That means he was unable to be employed anywhere else, so his father made him president of this company so he could hang out with other young guys who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. This company is going nowhere. The next big thing will be a revolt of the bondholders or the banks. The shareholders will not be happy.”


• On January 25, 2006: “Our leader will never consider stepping aside to allow someone with the drive and intellect to run the company, so long as he has no other job prospects and strong cash needs. Instead of figuring out a way to make the company profitable, he sells assets to keep his check coming in. Go to GHIN.COM in Pennsylvania for Kimball Bradley and you will quickly see where the energy of management is spent, and only a small fraction of the rounds are posted so as not to upset his father. What a waste. The bondholders would be well advised to call his bluff, take control and get someone in who will put the company right. There are only a few assets left to sell, and at Kimball’s age he will need to sell them all just to pay his caddies.”


• On February 10, 2006: “The market cap on RUN is $9,500,000.00. Check what the company was worth when currect [sic] management took over. Even at that number you could not sell the stock and hold the current stock price. What a waste. How do those people sleep at night? Subtract the debt from a reasonable enterprise evaluation and you are below zero. A monkey could do better.”


• On February 22, 2006: “There is a [sic] apparent disconnect between blind optimism and business sense. A manager should get out of his office and go to customers, visit the plants and find new markets, new products and new businesses to bring a company above the profit line. He does not refinance a sea of debt over a five year reign, sell the divisions that earn a profit, add no new ones, shrink the revenue and raise his own salary, while buying a stadium box for his personal use with company funds, leave the office by 3:00 pm every weekday, work no weekends or evenings and pine for a job that makes ‘real money.’ This guy is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, and only on a part time basis at that, while he works on his golfing handicap. We write in the hope that the board will wakeup and find a real CEO. Will recognize that it has a duty to the shareholders and not to an incompetnat [sic] young boy who cannot find a job on his own. . . .At Worldcom each boardmember was required to pay 20% of his personal net worth to the shareholders because they ignored guys like me. It will happen again.”


• On March 9, 2006: “This is just more rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. K. Bradley probably thinks he did something meriting a huge bonus or perhaps a pay increase, but look at what has happened since he became COO. Straight down for revenues, profits and share price. I agree he probably can’t sleep at night, but he should still put in a full day, although with his ability, the company would do better without him. Still, Dad likes him, so he gets promoted, GO Figure. After all the comments about YPO, I did some research and have concluded that they are circle of jerks or a circle jerk. Our Boy fits right in.”

Based on these statements, Bradley asserted claims under Pennsylvania law for defamation, including defamation per se, and for false light.

In October 2007, Connor removed the case from Pennsylvania state court to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims were barred under Pennsylvania's one-year statute of limitations.

On November 29, 2007, the district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit, rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the "discovery rule" should have tolled the statute of limitations.

Paul Tarsax, who blogs on a site called Catholic Anti-Defamation League, created and posted a video on YouTube that contained edited footage of Robert Sungenis, the founder of Catholic Apologists International (CAI), making controversial statements about Jews together with images from the holocaust.

On September 22, 2007, Tarsax received a cease-and-desist demand from Colin Andrews, Esq., purportedly a lawyer for CAI, which Tarsax posted on his blog. The demand states that the video is libelous and unless it is removed, CAI would "register a legal complaint with Youtube authorities as well as file a lawsuit against you."

Tarsax ignored the demand, but YouTube later removed the video. Tarsax says this was because Sungenis's statements were too graphic and upsetting, while Sungenis states it was because he had complained to YouTube that the video was libelous. Tarsax reposted the video, this time on Google Video and on his blog, where it remains as of May 22, 2008.

In October 2007, Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. and its sole shareholder, David Kent, sued Jean Bowler in federal court in Michigan. Bowler runs Ageless Beauty, an informational website on various aspects of beauty, cosmetics, and cosmetic surgery. According to the complaint, Bowler published an article on the website "sometime in 2007," in which she discussed an investigation of Liftestyle Lift's advertising methods by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (BBB).

The complaint acknowledged that BBB did in fact investigate the company and its advertising in 2007, but alleged that BBB closed the investigation with a report dated 30,2007, and that Bowler's article mischaracterized the nature of the investigation and falsely implied that it was ongoing after its closure. See Cmplt. 14-15. Lifestyle Lift claimed that Bowler's article constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act, defamation, commercial disparagement, and a violation of the Texas Deceptive Practices-Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint also alleged that Bowler infringed Lifestyle Lift's trademark and engaged in cybersquatting by using "Lifestyle Lift" in a URL for the site and in metadata. (Note: the cybersquatting claim is unprecedented and definitely invalid because Lifestyle Lift did not allege that Bowler registered, trafficked in, or used a domain name containing the words "Lifestyle Lift" or anything like it. The company was evidently confused about the difference between a single URL and the domain name for a website.)

The parties settled in February 2008. The entire terms of the settlement are not public, but Bowler has removed the disputed article from her website.

In March 2007, Thomas Evans, a deputy sheriff in the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, sued his former wife, Linda Evans, and her mother, Shirley Preddy, for defamation, harassment, invasion of privacy, and other claims. After Thomas and Linda Evans divorced in 2002, they engaged in a bitter dispute in family court over custody of their child, child support, and other issues. Thomas filed a separate lawsuit in California court after Linda and her mother allegedly posted false statements about him on various Internet websites and filed two written complaints with his employer. Thomas also alleged that Linda and Preddy published information from his medical and financial records on the Internet.

The trial court granted Thomas a preliminary injunction that prohibited Linda and Preddy from: (1) publishing "false and defamatory statements" about Thomas on the Internet; (2) publishing "confidential personal information" about Thomas on the Internet; and (3) contacting Thomas's employer regarding Thomas except to call 911 to report criminal conduct. Linda appealed, and the appellate court reversed the ruling of the district court. It held that the preliminary injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On the issue of Linda's alleged publication of Thomas's private information, the appellate court instructed the lower court to identify precisely what information Thomas seeks to protect and to balance his privacy rights (and the safety issues involved in disclosing personal information about a police officer) against the free-speech interests in publication.

Sometime before the appellate court ruled on the appeal, Thomas dismissed Preddy from the case, leaving Linda as the only defendant.

In June 2006, blogger Stephen Ward wrote a post criticizing Tiny Details, LLC, a company that produces doll-making kits that users can assemble at home and sell as a work-from-home-business. The post described Ward's negative experience with the company and directed readers to customer complaints, a Better Business Bureau report, and other materials critical of the company.

In February 2008, Kristopher Buchan, the president of Tiny Details, emailed Ward complaining that the post was libelous and demanding that Ward take it down. Buchan also stated that he had forwarded the post and Ward's domain information to his company attorney. Ward asked by reply email which statements were allegedly inaccurate. Buchan responded by stating that Ward "[would] be hearing from our attorney." Ward sent back additional emails asking for Buchan to identify the allegedly inaccurate statements and offering to update the post "with a more balanced view of your company" in order to avoid a lawsuit. Mr. Ward's site does not indicate whether Buchan ever responded, and there is no indication that Tiny Details filed a lawsuit.

The exchange between Ward and Buchan is detailed in the comments to Ward's original post.

Dr. Marion Nestle, who publishes the blog What To Eat, criticized the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) in a blog post, accusing the CCF of, among other things, receiving its funding from and serving as a mouthpiece for the tuna industry.

CCF's director of research, David Martosko, sent Nestle an email stating that the allegations in her blog post were false and libelous and "seem calculated to do harm to our reputation." According to the text of the email Nestle posted on her blog, Martosko also wrote:

The above examples have clearly crossed the line into libel territory, and could lead to legal action. If you have documentation that you believe substantiates your claim, I would be very interested to see it. But I am quite certain that you do not. I advise you to either post a correction or withdraw your January 24 piece entirely.

As of May 2, 2008, Nestle had not removed the disputed statements. Interestingly, Martosko engaged in an extended conversation with Nestle's readers in the comments section below the post in which Nestle reproduced his email.

Nemet Chevrolet and its owner Tom Nemet filed a lawsuit against ConsumerAffairs.com, a consumer ratings site run by former reporter James Hood, for publishing user complaints against his company. Nemet claims the postings published on the site constitute defamation, tortious interference with business expectations and violations of the Lanham Act.

According to Nemet's complaint, visitors to the website fill out an online complaint form, which the editors check for defamatory content before publishing. One disputed user complaint alleges that the company had reneged on a promise made by one of its salespersons to a customer. Another customer posting quoted in the complaint asserts that the company sold the car to her at an inflated price. Nemet maintains that these and other statements are defamatory. 

Nemet's complaint also alleges that the website's name "Consumer Affairs" is misleading and deceptive in violation of the Lanham Act, because it misleads members of the public into believing that it is a government body.

On April 14, 2008, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or strike the complaint, arguing that it has immunity from defamation and tortious interference under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It also argued that plaintiffs had failed to state a Lanham Act claim, because Nemet has no rights to the trademark "Consumer Affairs." The court set a motion hearing for May 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

Update:

6/18/2008 - The district court granted ConsumerAffair's motion to dismiss or strike the complaint.

7/15/2008 - The district court granted Nemet Chevrolet's motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

08/04/2008 - ConsumerAffairs filed a motion to dismiss or strike the amended complaint.

9/11/2008 - The district court granted ConsumerAffair's motion to dismiss or stike the amended complaint.

9/25/2008 - Nemet Chevrolet filed a notice of appeal.

12/29/2009 - The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.

In February 2008, the Frisco Fairways Homeowners Association filed a defamation suit against three homeowners after they posted critical comments about the association on an online community forum. According to the Dallas News, the lawsuit claims that Mr. Snell, Mr. Doumani, and Mr. Macari falsely stated or implied that the association's board had lied to members, engaged in questionable financial dealings, and acted unethically. The association claims that the homeowners also posted private information about members. The dispute apparently arose after the association required residents to cover up air conditioning units, pool equipment, and other items with bushes. News reports indicate that the case is expected to go to trial in April 2008.

Update:

5/1/2008 - Parties settled the case.  As part of the settlement, the association agreed to post the settlement agreement on its website for no less than 30 days.