On July 27, 2007, Khalaji's lawyers sent a letter to Derkhshan, his domain registrar (GoDaddy), and his hosting service (Hosting Matters, Inc). According to the letter, Derakhshan's posts alleged that Khalaji was working for a right wing think tank that openly supported the policy of 'regime change" in Iran and was "giving ideas to the cruelest and dirtiest enemies of Iran and humanity." The letter also took issue with a claim that Khalaji was "the only Iranian who has worked for both Khameni's office and Dick Cheney's, who intends to bomb Khalaji's former office building plus thousands of men, women and children living in the surrounding area." Derakhshan disputes the accuracy of Khalaji's translations of these statements.

As well as demanding that the hosting company and domain registrar take down the defamatory statements, Khalaji sought an apology and $10,000 in settlement. After a lengthy back-and-forth between Derakhshan and Hosting Matters about what material Derakhshan would take down from his blogs, Hosting Matters terminated Derakhshan's accounts in August 2007. Days later, Derakhshan's blogs were back online with a different hosting service, 1&1 Internet, apparently with the disputed posts still in place.

Khalaji filed a lawsuit against Derakhshan in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in October 2007. (For more information, please see the CMLP's database entry, Khalaji v. Derakhshan.)

Justin Leonard runs the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com. These websites give consumers the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of various products and services. Pages on these websites are devoted to criticisms and defenses of Video Professor, Inc., a Colorado company that develops and sells video tutorials on a variety of computer-related topics. Apparently, a number of anonymous posters made critical statements about Video Professor's products on these forum pages.

In August 2007, Video Professor filed a John Doe lawsuit against 100 anonymous defendants (and some anonymous corporations and LLCs too!) in federal court in Colorado. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of a Colorado consumer protection statute, tortious interference with business relations, and common law product disparagement/defamation. The complaint states that the anonymous defendants made false and defamatory statements about Video Professor's products, but does not identify any specific statements.

Video Professor moved ex parte for an order authorizing it to conduct discovery, in the form of third-party subpoenas requiring the recipients to produce documents identifying the anonymous posters. The court granted the motion.

On September 6, 2007, Justin Leonard's company, Leonard Fitness, Inc., received a subpoena, requesting that it produce identifying information for the author of every post on Leonard's websites relating to Video Professor. Along with the subpoena, Video Professor provided a check for $40.81 to compensate Leonard for his expenses in complying with the subpoena.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group took up the matter on behalf of Leonard and sent a letter to Video Professor's counsel objecting to the subpoena and laying out the reasons why, in its view, the subpoena was invalid.

Specifically, the letter argued that the subpoena encroached upon the rights of the anonymous defendants to engage in anonymous speech on the Internet without meeting the legal requirements necessary to justify disclosure of their identities. It also argued that the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it called for information relating to all postings about Video Professor on Leonard's sites, rather than identifying which postings were allegedly defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Finally, the letter stressed that the check provided with the subpoena was not sufficient to compensate Leonard for the work he would have to do to comply with the subpoena.

Communications ensued between Public Citizen and counsel for Video Professor. Video Professor narrowed the list of anonymous posters to 43. It also endeavored to provide Public Citizen with evidence supporting its allegations for each of the postings.

On or around October 18, 2007, Public Citizen sent a notice to each of the 43 posters identified by Video Professor. The letter informed the posters of the pendency of the lawsuit and the request for identifying information about them. It encouraged them to hire a lawyer and explained that Leonard would not produce any documents before October 31, 2007, in order to to give them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena in federal court. It also indicated that Public Citizen had asked Video Professor for evidence to support its claims, and that Public Citizen (on behalf of Leonard) would move to quash the subpoena should it determine that Video Professor had not done so.

On October 19, 2007, Public Citizen sent Video Professor a letter, explaining that it had sent the notice. The letter also questioned the legal adequacy of the Lanham Act claims and the adequacy of Video Professor's factual showing on the defamation claims. It requested more documents to establish, among other things, the falsity of the statements at issue.

We are not aware of the filing of any motion to quash yet.

Richard Warman is a Canadian human rights lawyer based in Ottawa. Formerly with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman is best known for initiating human rights complaints against members of white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements for engaging in hate speech on the Internet.

In September and October 2007, Warman sent two letters to Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins-Fournier, proprietors of the right-wing Canadian forum/website, Freedominion.ca. The letters accused Fournier and Wilkins-Fournier of libel, stated Warman's "intention to commence an action for libel against [them]," and requested a complete retraction. The letters claimed that posts written by the Fourniers and forum participants were libelous in that they accused Warman of engaging in censorship, stifling free speech, and being a "professional complainer," among other things.

A number of websites and bloggers have proclaimed their support for the Fourniers and their condemnation of what they see as Warman's attempts at censorship. Among them are neo-Nazis that Warman has targeted in the past. There is no evidence that the Fourneirs condone the positions espoused by these neo-Nazi supporters, however. In fact, a significant portion of Freedominion.ca's user base appears to be supporters of Israel and Jewish causes.

On or around November 23, 2007, Warman filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa.

Justin Leonard runs the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com. These websites give users of infomerical products the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of these products and associated sales tactics. Pages on these websites are devoted to criticisms and defenses of Video Professor, Inc., a Colorado company that develops and sells video tutorials on a variety of computer-related topics. Apparently, a number of anonymous posters made critical statements about Video Professor's products on these forum pages.

In August 2007, Video Professor filed a John Doe lawsuit against 100 anonymous defendants (and some anonymous corporations and LLCs too!) in federal court in Colorado. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Lanham Act, violations of a Colorado consumer protection statute, tortious interference with business relations, and common law product disparagement/defamation. The complaint states that the anonymous defendants made false and defamatory statements about Video Professor's products, but does not identify any specific statements.

Video Professor moved ex parte for an order authorizing it to conduct discovery, in the form of third-party subpoenas requiring the recipients to produce documents identifying the anonymous posters. The court granted the motion.

On September 6, 2007, Justin Leonard's company, Leonard Fitness, Inc., received a subpoena, requesting that it produce identifying information for the author of every post on Leonard's websites relating to Video Professor. Along with the subpoena, Video Professor provided a check for $40.81 to compensate Leonard for his expenses in complying with the subpoena.

The Public Citizen Litigation Group took up the matter on behalf of Leonard and sent a letter to Video Professor's counsel objecting to the subpoena and laying out the reasons why, in its view, the subpoena was invalid.

Specifically, the letter argued that the subpoena encroached upon the rights of the anonymous defendants to engage in anonymous speech on the Internet without meeting the legal requirements necessary to justify disclosure of their identities. It also argued that the subpoena was unduly burdensome because it called for information relating to all postings about Video Professor on Leonard's sites, rather than identifying which postings were allegedly defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Finally, the letter stressed that the check provided with the subpoena was not sufficient to compensate Leonard for the work he would have to do to comply with the subpoena.

Communications ensued between Public Citizen and counsel for Video Professor. Video Professor narrowed the list of anonymous posters to 43. It also endeavored to provide Public Citizen with evidence supporting its allegations for each of the postings.

On or around October 18, 2007, Public Citizen sent a notice to each of the 43 posters identified by Video Professor. The letter informed the posters of the pendency of the lawsuit and the request for identifying information about them. It encouraged them to hire a lawyer and explained that Leonard would not produce any documents before October 31, 2007, in order to to give them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena in federal court. It also indicated that Public Citizen had asked Video Professor for evidence to support its claims, and that Public Citizen (on behalf of Leonard) would move to quash the subpoena should it determine that Video Professor had not done so.

On October 19, 2007, Public Citizen sent Video Professor a letter, explaining that it had sent the notice. The letter also questioned the legal adequacy of the Lanham Act claims and the adequacy of Video Professor's factual showing on the defamation claims. It requested more documents to establish, among other things, the falsity of the statements at issue.

Update:

12/26/2007 - Video Professor filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, ending the case.

07/10/2009 - Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports that the websites infomercialratings.com and infomercialscams.com have been taken down.

In 2001, Kwang Yul Cha, a Korean fertility researcher and fertility clinic operator, co-wrote a paper entitled "Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Report of a masked, randomized trial." The controversial paper, which appeared in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, reported a higher success rate for in vitro fertilization in women who were prayed for compared to those who were not.

In March 2007, Bruce Flamm, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Irvine and an enduring critic of Cha's prayer study, published an article entitled "Prayer Study Author Charged With Plagiarism" in Ob. Gyn. News, a print medical news journal that is also available online. The one-page article included the following break-out text: "This may be the first time in history that all three authors of a randomized, controlled study have been found guilty of fraud, deception, and/or plagiarism." (Emphasis added.)

The allegations of fraud and deception related to Cha's co-authors, Rogerio Lobo and Daniel Wirth. The allegation of plagiarism related to Cha's co-authorship of another article, published in Fertility and Sterility in 2005. The LA Times reported in February 2007 that Alan DeCherney, editor-in-chief of Fertility and Sterility, had identified this second article as plagiarized (after it was published). DeCherney later retracted this comment when Cha threatened to sue him and the LA Times.

Cha filed a lawsuit against Flamm for defamation in California state court on August 31, 2007. Cha alleges that the implication of "found guilty" in the sentence quoted above is that he has been convicted of plagiarism by a court or administrative body, which he has not.

According to Flamm's lawyer, the meaning of the sentence, when read in the context of the article as a whole, is not that Cha has been convicted of plagiarism by a jury, but has been found by his scientific peers to have been guilty of plagiarism, an assertion which is supported by DeCherney's earlier statements. Flamm claims not to have known that DeCherney in fact retracted his statement after also receiving legal threats from Cha.

The court granted Flamm's motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) on November 20, 2007. Cha's attorneys filed a motion to vacate the decision based on new evidence and other arguments, and the court granted that motion on January 24, 2008, reversing the dismissal.

On April 21, 2008, the Superior Court again dismissed the case.

Update:

10/25/2009 - the California Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

02/2010 - The Callifornia Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. 

OMDA Oil & Gas sued Arthur J. Porcari after he posted comments on private investor boards including the Yahoo! OMDA Investor Chat Board.

In June 2004, Porcari, a large stockholder of publicly traded shares in OMDA, told the Chairman of OMDA Adam Barnett that he believed that OMDA shares were undervalued and offered to assist the firm in expanding its operations. Barnett accepted the offer, and Porcari took over the firm's communications operations (he did not, however, become an officer of the company). In March 2006, Barnett and Porcari had a falling out over Barnett's management of the company, and Barnett put an end to Porcari's work for OMDA.

Before and after his involvement with Barnett, Porcari posted comments on the Yahoo! chat board criticizing OMDA's management and replying to Barnett's posts.

On March 1, 2007, OMDA sued Porcari in Texas state court, alleging that his Yahoo! posts were defamatory, constituted business disparagement, and breached Porcari's fiduciary duties to OMDA by disclosing confidential information obtained during his involvement with the firm.

The trial court granted OMDA a temporary injunction restraining Porcari from publishing defamatory, disparaging or negative statements about OMDA or any of its officers, directors, members, shareholders or affiliates, and from disclosing information he obtained between June 1, 2004 and March 31, 2006.

In June 2007, Porcari appealed the trial court's grant of the injunction. In October, a Texas appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the injunction constituted an unconsistutional prior restraint on Porcari's speech. The court ruled that claims of defamation and trade libel are not themselves sufficient to justify prohibiting a litigant from making negative statements about a company because damages can redress the harm. The court further held that the order requiring Porcari to refrain from disclosing any information obtained in the period from June 2004 to March 2006 was overbroad in restricting Porcari from communicating matters of public knowledge, rather than restricting the disclosure of confidential information only.

Update:

1/7/2008 - OMDA filed a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court.

06/06/2008 - OMDA's petition to the Texas Supreme Court was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (scroll down or Ctrl+F "porcari")

On September 21, 2007, DirectBuy, a company that apparently helps customers to buy furniture directly from manufacturers, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Leonard through its lawyers, Dozier Internet Law, P.C. The letter claims that Leonard and his users had defamed the company by referring to its direct-buy plan as a "scam" and a "nightmare." It threatens a lawsuit unless Leonard removes "all defamatory and disparaging statements" about DirectBuy from his websites and compensates the company for its attorneys fees and costs. Most interestingly, the letter ends with an assertion of copyright on behalf of the law firm:

Please be aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law firm, and you are not authorized to republish this is any manner. Use of this letter in a posting, in full or in part, will subject you to further legal causes of action.

Public Citizen Litigation Group got involved on behalf of Leonard. Lawyers for the group not only posted the Dozier firm's letter, but sent a powerful (yet cheeky) response entitled "How not to write a cease and desist letter -- an open letter in response to your September 21 threat." The response not only disputes DirectBuy's defamation claim and its expansive reading of the important recent CDA 230 case, Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007), but also takes the Dozier firm to task for its copyright warning, calling it "the worst thing about your letter". The Public Citizen lawyer continued:

Such a posting [of the letter] would be fair use. Moreover, inquiry by my colleague Greg Beck produced the interesting information that the copyright in the letter has not been registered. Sadly, according to what you told him, you have been successful in this intimidation because none of your cease and desist letters has ever been posted.

There is always a first time. We are posting the letter on the Public Citizen web site (the letter can be found at http://www.citizen.org/documents/directbuycd.pdf) so the public can assess our differences by comparing your contentions with our responses. By this letter, we are inviting you to test the validity of your theory that a writer of a cease and desist letter can avoid public scrutiny by threatening to file a copyright law suit if his letter is disclosed publicly on the Internet.

There appears to have been no developments after Public Citizen's response letter.

In October 1994, an unknown user posted statements on Prodigy's "Money Talk" bulletin board indicating that Stratton Oakmont, Inc., a Long Island securities brokerage firm, and its president, Daniel Porush, had committed criminal and fraudulent acts in connection with the initial public offering of Solomon-Page, Ltd. As a result, Stratton and Porush sued Prodigy and anonymous defendants in New York state court for defamation.

The plaintiffs argued that Prodigy should be considered a "publisher" of the anonymous poster's statements. Under the common law of defamation, if Prodigy were considered a publisher, it could be held liable for the statements of the unknown user. Conversely, if it were found to be merely a "distributor," it could not be held liable unless it knew or had reason to know about the allegedly defamatory statements.

"Money Talk" was, at the time, a widely read forum covering stocks, investments, and other business matters. Prodigy contracted with Charles Epstein to act as "Board Leader," a position entailing, in part, participation in board discussions, board promotional efforts, and board supervision. In its argument that Prodigy was a publisher of the defamatory statements, the plaintiffs pointed to representations Prodigy had made in various newspaper articles representing itself as an organization that exercised editorial control over the content on its servers.

In making their case, the plaintiffs also pointed to Prodigy's "content guidelines," which stated rules that users were expected to abide by, a software screening program which filtered out offensive language, and the employment of moderators or "Board Leaders" who were responsible for enforcing the content guidelines.

In May 1995, on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the court held that these representations and policies were sufficient to treat Prodigy as a publisher. In so holding, the court distinguished the case from an earlier one involving CompuServe, which was found merely to be an "electronic for-profit library" or repository and thus a passive distributor. In particular, the court pointed to Prodigy's creation of an "editorial staff of Board Leaders who have the ability to continually monitor incoming transmissions." The court noted, however, that bulletin boards should normally be considered distributors when they do not exercise significant editorial control, as Prodigy had done.

Prodigy moved for reconsideration of the May 1995 decision, but the party's settled in October 1995, apparently before the motion was decided.

In passing the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which, among other things, established immunity for internet service providers for publishing "information provided by another information content provider," 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), the House explicitly stated its intent to overturn the result reached in the Prodigy case. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-58, at 194.