On September 6, 2007, counsel for New School of Orlando Preparatory, an Orlando private school, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sonjia McSween, the parent of a former student. The letter claimed that statements appearing on McSween's blog, "Say NO to New School of Orlando," were "defamatory, libelous, slanderous, and/or disparaging" and demanded that she terminate the operation of the website and refrain from publishing defamatory statements about the school in the future.

In response, McSween moved the content of her blog to another blog, "Musings of a Disappointed Parent." At the top of the page on "Musings," McSween displayed a disclaimer indicating that her postings were her "opinion."

The school sent a second cease-and-desist letter on September 13, 2007. The letter argued that the "opinion" disclaimer did not eliminate or even reduce McSween's liability because she was publishing defamatory statements of fact about the school. McSween then allegedly removed the disputed statements from "Musings" and created a link to her MySpace page, where the statements apparently still appear.

The New School of Orlando, Inc., the company that owns New School of Orlando Preparatory, filed a lawsuit against McSween in Florida state court. (For more information on the lawsuit, please see the CMLP database entry, New School of Orlando v. McSween.)

Sorenson's Ranch School, a rehabilitation center and school for troubled youths in Koosharem, Utah, along with two of its officers filed a defamation lawsuit against MySpace and 10 unknown John Doe defendants claiming that a MySpace page had been set up in which users criticized the school's operations (the page no longer exists).

In the suit, the school alleged that MySpace and some anonymous users published statements falsely indicating that the Sorensons engaged in child abuse, employed underqualified staff, and engaged in false advertising. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants used "vulgar and inappropriate language" and otherwise made defamatory statements regarding the school.

The complaint asked for $125,000 in damages and an injunction against further publication of the defamatory comments.

There is no indication in the case docket that plaintiffs served MySpace with the complaint, and no defendant filed an answer. About four months after filing the complaint, with no further filings or motions occuring in the case, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

In March 2007, Children of America, Inc., a childcare provider, sued Ed Magedson and Xcentric Ventures, LLC, the owners and operators of the Ripoff Report website, for defamation in Arizona state court.

Ripoff Report is a consumer reporting website that invites consumers to file and document complaints about companies or individuals with whom they've had negative business experiences. Users of Ripoff Report posted a number of critical comments about Children of America.

Children of America sued, arguing that, in addition to publishing user comments, Ripoff Report itself augmented and/or added headlines for the allegedly defamatory postings.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claim based on CDA 230, which protects information service providers from liability for the defamatory comments of third parties. On October 24, 2007, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the motion with respect to those statements allegedly created by Ripoff Report users, but allowed the action to continue with respect to those statements allegedly authored by the defendants.

Update:

12/1/08 - According to the Case Docket, the parties have settled the case.

On October 29, 2007, a lawyer for the Galveston Independent School District sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sandra Tetley, who operates a "watchdog" blog about the school district called GISD Watch.

We have not been able to obtain a copy of the school district's letter, but, according to the Galveston County Daily News, the letter demanded that Tetley remove what it called libelous statements and other "legally offensive" statements posted by her and anonymous users of her site. The postings complained about in the letter apparently accused district officials of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for personal gain, and violating open meetings laws, among other things. The letter indicated that the school district would sue Tetley if she refused to meet its demands.

Tetley retained a local lawyer who sent a response letter to the district's lawyer on November 8, arguing that Tetley could not be held liable for the statements of others and characterizing the statements at issue as opinions. Tetley has not removed the offending posts and has announced her intention to defend the suit vigorously.

On November 9, school superintendent Lynne Cleveland issued a statement recommending that the district not pursue legal action against Tetley. Cleveland reasoned that she did not want to pull attention away from educating the district's children any longer. It is not clear at present whether the school district has taken any further steps.

The Lebanon, Oregon school district has been in turmoil for many years. On August 1, 2007, three members of the school board placed the superintendent on administrative leave pending an investigation. In response, an anonymous blogger going by "Lebanon Truth" ("LT") started a blog designed to give the public an alternative perspective on current events and access to information about alleged wrongdoing by school district employees (information that was supposed to be confidential, but that LT was able to confirm through a variety of sources). The blog claimed that the administrative leave action was both illegal and not helpful in resolving the issues facing the district.

LT also posted statements, self-described as opinions, about key players in the dispute, including the president of the local teachers union Kim Fandino, the athletic director, and the football coach, all of whom oppose the current district administration. LT also posted comments about board and audience behavior at school board meetings, rumors about the superintendent's alleged infidelity and why those rumors were not credible, and opinions on ways to resolve the conflict in the community.

Sometime in September 2007, Fandino apparently contacted local law enforcement officials claiming that the statements on the blog constituted criminal harassment and/or cyberbullying. According to the Lebanon Express, officials informed Fandino that the statements did not reach the level of criminal harassment or cyberbullying, but that the statements might violate civil libel laws or school board policy.

On September 28, Fandino filed a complaint with the school district, claiming that the blog was cyberbulling by a district employee (although the identity of the blogger was not known) and asking the district to subpoena Google to reveal the identity of the blogger. After consulting with the district's lawyer, the superintendent declined to take up the matter on behalf of Fandino and advised that she retain her own lawyer.

Fandino then appealed to the five member school board. The item was scheduled for discussion at the November 5, 2007 board meeting. At the meeting, the board chair indicated that the district's lawyer had advised against pursuing legal action against the blogger and requested that the board postpone any further action until the members had a chance to meet with counsel on November 19. One board member moved to allow Fandino to address the board directly and another member seconded the motion, but the chair rejected the motion as out of order and adjourned the meeting.

On November 12, LT published a post on Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute (Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150), indicating that it should help him/her to strike the complaint and recover attorney's fees in the event of a lawsuit by Fandino or the school district.

Robert Sanchez lost an election for City Commissioner in Brownsville, Texas, but kept the forum on his campaign website active after the election. On that forum, users posted allegedly libelous material about Carolyn Lackner Baird, a jewelry store owner connected to Sanchez's political rival, as well as her daughter and her business.

The corporation operating the jewelry store sued Sanchez for libel based on these posts. Sanchez removed the case to federal court on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)) protected him from liability.

On plaintiff's motion to remand, the federal court held that, as an affirmative defense, CDA 230 did not provide proper grounds for removal of the action to federal court when the parties were both from Texas and the plaintiff had asserted only state law claims for relief.

The federal court therefore remanded the case back to the County Court of Cameron County, Texas.

Tabatha Marshall runs a blog and website at TabathaMarshall.com, on which she writes about suspicious online job solicitations and so-called "phishing" practices. Part of her site consists of the "PhishBucket," a "directory of companies / individuals suspected of targeting job seekers with deceptive offers." Included in the PhishBucket is an entry for "VeriResume (Internet Solutions)," which bears the statement "Pending Investigation Phisher" at the top-right of the page. The entry also contains physical and web addresses for the company, links to posts about it (internal and external), and names of affiliated companies. The PhishBucket also includes entries for other companies operated by Internet Solutions Corporation, including Ask America, Too Spoiled, and USA Voice.

Marshall's site also contains articles relating to her research and views about certain companies and their online job solicitations. Among these is a post entitled "Something's VeriRotten with VeriResume." In this post, Marshall excerpts a sample email from VeriResume soliciting job applications, criticizes the company's position on resume fraud, and links to other sites (like the Better Business Bureau) with information about VeriResume and Internet Solutions. She invites readers to "[c]heck out the research and YOU decide if you want to give them your info."

Several users submitted comments to the post that were critical of VeriResume. One user, who claimed to be a company employee, alleged that the company engages in a "bait-and-switch" routine after applicants submit their information, according to documents attached to the complaint. In an update to her original post, Marshall summarized these user's comments and expounded on the situation.

On October 31, 2007, Counsel representing VeriResume and ten other Internet Solutions-affiliated companies sent a cease-and-desist letter to Marshall via email. Marshall did not open the attachment because she did not recognize the email address of the sender. She received a hard copy of the letter on November 5, 2007, after a lawsuit had already been filed. The letter demanded that Marshall cease and desist from defaming the companies by characterizing them as "phishing" enterprises or "scams." It claimed that these and other statements were actionable under "numerous legal causes of action," including "libel, defamation, and tortious interterference with business contracts and business relationships." The letter further requested that Marshall remove all references on her site to any of the ten companies, and advised her that suit would be filed if she did not comply by 5pm the next day.

On October 31, counsel also sent a draft copy of the complaint, which was filed in federal court in Florida the next day. (For more information on the related lawsuit, please see the CMLP database entry, Internet Solutions v. Marshall).

On November 1, 2007, Internet Solutions, a company that runs a number of employment recruiting and Internet advertising businesses, including VeriResume, sued blogger Tabatha Marshall in federal court in Florida.

Marshall runs a blog and website at www.tabathamarshall.com, on which she writes about suspicious online job solicitations and so-called "phishing" practices. Part of her site consists of the "PhishBucket," a "directory of companies/individuals suspected of targeting job seekers with deceptive offers." Included in the PhishBucket is an entry for "VeriResume (Internet Solutions)," which bears the statement "Pending Investigation Phisher" at the top-right of the page. The entry also contains physical and web addresses for the company, links to posts about it (internal and external), and names of affiliated companies. The PhishBucket also includes entries for other companies operated by Internet Solutions, including Ask America, Scout 2007, Too Spoiled, and USA Voice.

Marshall's site also contains articles relating to her research and views about certain companies and their online job solicitations. Among these is a post entitled "Something's VeriRotten with VeriResume." In this post, Marshall excerpts a sample email from VeriResume soliciting job applications, criticizes the company's position on resume fraud, and links to other sites (like the Better Business Bureau) with information about VeriResume and Internet Solutions. She invites readers to "[c]heck out the research and YOU decide if you want to give them your info."

Several users submitted comments to the post that were critical of VeriResume. One user, who claimed to be a company employee, alleged that the company engages in a "bait-and-switch" routine after applicants submit their information, according to documents attached to the complaint. In an update to her original post, Marshall summarized these user's comments and expounded on the situation.

Starting on October 30, 2007, a representative of VeriResume (or Internet Solutions -- the record is not clear on this point) contacted Marshall via email, claiming that information about VeriResume and other companies posted on Marshall's website was incorrect and asking her to remove it. According to Marshall, the company representative also contacted her landlord, claiming that Marshall was operating a business in her house, a claim that Marshall disputes. On October 31, 2007, one day before filing suit, counsel representing VeriResume and ten other Internet Solutions-affiliated companies sent a cease-and-desist letter to Marshall via email. (For more information on the emails and letter, please see the CMLP database entry, VeriResume v. Marshall (Email)).

Internet Solutions's complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and injurious falsehood (trade libel). It alleges that Marshall has "author[ed], post[ed], and publish[ed]" statements claiming that Internet Solutions engages in "phishing," "scams," and other criminal and fraudulent conduct. It requests compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction requiring Marshall to remove the allegedly defamatory posts and prohibiting her from making future defamatory statements about the company.

Marshall was served with the complaint on November 3, and she has 20 days to respond. Marshall maintains that she merely posts her opinions, publicly available information, and third-party comments and asks her readers to draw their own conclusions. She is seeking legal assistance in this matter.

Update:

4/8/2008 - The court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Marshall.

4/24/08 - Internet Solutions indicated to Marshall that it intends to file an appeal and commence another lawsuit in Washington state.

04/29/08 - Internet Solutions filed a notice that it has appealed the dismissal to the 11th Circuit.

06/06/2008 - Internet Solutions filed its appellate brief with the 11th Circuit.

07/16/2008 - Marshall filed her appellate brief with the 11th Circuit.

02/10/2009 - The 11th Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Does posting allegedly defamatory stories and comments about a company with its principal place of business in Florida on a non-commercial website owned and operated by a nonresident with no other connections to Florida constitute a commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of Fla. Stat. section 48.193(1)(b)?"

03/03/2010 - Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument on the certified question.

06/17/2010 - Florida Supreme Court issued its decision on the certified question:

We answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative. We conclude that posting defamatory material on a website alone does not constitute the commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Rather, the material posted on the website about a Florida resident must not only be accessible in Florida, but also be accessed in Florida in order to constitute the commission of the tortious act of defamation within Florida under section 48.193(1)(b). 

9/30/2010 - District Court dismissed case based on lack of personal jurisdiction.