On February 19, 2009, lawyers representing Sam Sethi, a former employee of TechCrunch and former CEO of now-defunct BlogNation, sent a letter to TechCrunch co-founder Michael Arrington threatening suit "within the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales, at the Royal Courts of Justice (in London, UK)" for libel. 

The basis for the suit is a series of allegedly defamatory posts on CrunchNotes (the TechCrunch blog) which stated, according to the letter, that:

• "[S]ome of [Sethi's] former writers have accused him of fraud and other crimes."
• Sethi "had threatened to kill" one of his former business associates.
• Sethi was "involved in '. . . usury, fraud even'" (quoting from a blog post by Oliver Starr).
• Sethi is "predisposed to making threats of violence and making others feel threatened by him and being thoroughly deceitful."

Sethi is also suing based upon the "posting [of] a confidential (and stolen) termsheet from [BlogNations'] VC funders," which, according to Sethi's lawyers, "seriously jeopardize[d]" the BlogNation's funding.  Sethi is asking TechCrunch to remove all posts that include allegedly false accusations about him, publish an apology, undertake "not to repeat the same or similar libels again," pay his legal costs, and donate damages to a charity or "towards fees of those unpaid editors at Blognation who had remained faithful to the end."

Michael Arrington replied to Sethi's letter through his lawyers, asserting that TechCrunch is "not susceptible to the jurisdiction of English courts" and that an English judgment would not be recognized or enforced by US courts.  He also provided evidence, mostly in the form of blog posts and comments by others, that he believes supports the veracity of the statements made in the CrunchNotes posts at issue.  TechCrunch has also offered Sethi the opportunity to submit a reply "concerning the challenged statements" that would be posted "with equal prominence to [TechCrunch's] previous posts about him."

According to TechCrunch, a lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2009. Based on third party reports, the lawsuit appears to have been filed in the United Kingdom.

James Ricobene filed suit against JP Morgan Chase and collection agency Universal Tracing Services (UTS) after a UTS employee allegedly posted a message on Ricobene's daughter's MySpace page threatening legal action if he did not surrender his 2007 Mercedes GL450, which he apparently used as collateral to secure a loan from Chase. 

According to Ricobene's complaint, the message posted on Gina Ricobene's MySpace page read as follows:

We have been retained by, JPMorgan Chase Bank, to locate and repossess their missing collateral a 2007 Mercedes GL 450. Please contact our office immediately so we can discuss the peaceful recovery of the collateral. Failure to contact me will result in further action against your father James Ricobene. Legal options range from having a replevin order served on you or even worse reporting the collateral as stolen to local authorities in Illinois under the A.R.S. act 18-5-504. Failure to comply with this notice of surrender is a class 5 felony and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years plus all applicable surcharges. You must contact the writer within 5 days to prevent this action from taking place. You can contact me directly at 800-667-7704 ext 222 or directly at 604-267-1581 ext. 222

Awaiting your immediate response.

Chris Flanagan
Senior investigator

Complaint ¶ 6.  Ricobene's complaint points out that refusing to return collateral without a court order is not a crime in Illinois, and that "there is no such thing as a 'class 5 felony' in Illinois." Complaint ¶¶ 11, 13. It also alleges that friends and family members saw the message on MySpace, causing Ricobene humiliation, embarassment, and emotional distress.

Ricobene's complaint includes claims of libel, false light invasion of privacy, and consumer fraud.  According to Chicago Breaking News, his daughter Gina has also filed suit, claiming invasion of privacy and consumer fraud.

According to  On Point News, UTS denies having an employee by the name stated in the post and claims that "no employee 'has ever posted anything on anyone's MySpace page."  Its website, however, boasts that "Universal tracing prides itself in using the latest technology and resources to track down and locate the hardest to find missing persons, and debtors." (emphasis in original)

In 1999, Brett Bezzant, then-owner of the American Fork Citizen New Utah!, a local newspaper, published a political advertisement prepared and paid for by Bill Jacob, which claimed that an American Fork City ordinance barred two men from running for City Council, despite a legal opinion from the city's attorneys that said otherwise. Jacob's name was not on the flier. After the two candidates complained to Bezzant, he paid for and published an "Urgent Election Notice" that apologized to the two men, named Jacob as the author of the political advertisement, and called it a "classic example of negative campaigning." Bezzant distributed the notice by mail to American Fork residents and posted it on the newspaper's website.

Jacob filed a lawsuit against Bezzant, claiming the notice contained defamatory language and portrayed him in a false light. Bezzant filed a counterclaim under Utah's Citizen Participation in Government Act, also known as the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Act.  The trial court dismissed Jacob's defamation claims and granted Bezzant attorney's fees under the Anti-SLAPP Act and a federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)).

On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held in a June 2009 opinion that dismissal of Jacob's defamation suit and awarding of attorney's fees was inappropriate under the Anti-SLAPP Act because Bezzant's election notice was not "participati[on] in the process of government."  Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1403(1) (2008).  However, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the defamation suit as lacking legal merit and the award of partial attorney's fees under the civil rights statute.  The court declined to address the issue, raised by Jacobs for the first time on appeal, of whether Utah's Anti-SLAPP Act is unconstitutional under the Utah Constitution.

Tedd W. Mason, a high school football player, filed a lawsuit against his teammate and MySpace.com user, Matthew Grey, for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy, false light, and defamation.  Grey allegedly punched Mason. Mason brought claims of defamation and other speech torts over Grey’s alleged discussion of Mason’s health on Grey’s MySpace.com page. Mason also brought suit against Grey’s parents, Rick and Kasia Gay, and the Riverside Unified School District.

According to Mason's complaint, he asserts that Grey, without warning, struck Mason with “a minimum of six punches to the face and head” on January 4, 2005 in the North High football team room.  Following this incident, the Riverside Unified School District allegedly mandated that Grey satisfy an "Anger Management Requirement."  Mason also contends that Grey sent him a written apology. Mason’s eight-count complaint  alleges that on or about August 3, 2005, Grey, after completing his Anger Management course, posted a message on his public page on myspace.com, a post that reads in part “FUCK TEDD . . .  I found out that im inelligable [sic] today and for some reason Tedd Mason is in need of MRI for his ‘severe headaches’ and yet he can still go full speed at practice everyday. Odd isn’t it . . .”  Compl. ¶ 47.

Mason claims that this post attempts to expose him “to hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace by alleging that [he] is of a dishonest character,” and  “to demonstrate that [he] is a liar, and therefore is defamatory on its face.” Compl. ¶¶ 48-49.

In addition, Mason asserts a claim for public disclosure of private facts: the disclosure of his private “health condition.” Compl. ¶ 54. Further, Mason claims that this “public disclosure was an unfair and inaccurate depiction” and therefore asserts a claim of false light invasion of privacy. Compl. ¶ 62.

Mason claims that employees of Riverside Unified School District “disclosed private facts about [his] health condition to . . . persons not authorized to receive such information, including . . . Matthew Grey, . . . Kasia Gay, and… Rick Gay,” and he asserts a claim of public disclosure of private facts. Compl. ¶ 81.

Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay each answered Mason’s complaint on Feb 16, 2006. They each put forth thirteen affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, estoppel, unclean hands, justification, and assumption of risk.

On August 20, 2007 Mason settled his claims of negligence and public disclosure against Riverside Unified School District for $75,000. Kasia and Rick Gay moved for summary judgment on August 24, 2007, arguing that Mason's settlement with the school gave them a right of off set. This motion was denied. On July 21, 2008 Mason settled his claims against Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay for an undisclosed amount.  

Too Much Media, LLC ("TMM"), a software company that services the online adult entertainment business, sued Washington-based blogger Shellee Hale in New Jersey state court in June 2008, after she posted comments about a security breach in TMM's software product on Oprano.com, an online forum for those in the online adult entertainment industry.  The complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and trade libel. 

In March 2009, Hale moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that counsel for TMM had withdrawn all claims but "slander per se" in a January hearing, and that slander only applies to oral statements.  TMM opposed the motion, arguing that it had not limited its claim to slander in the January hearing, and that it can recover for libel without showing proof of pecuniary loss. 

Also in March 2009, Hale filed a separate motion asking the court to rule that New Jersey's journalist shield law protected her from having to testify about the identity of her confidential sources in her upcoming deposition. In a certification accompanying the motion, Hale testified that she reports on Internet security issues through several blogs (www.camandago.com; www.shelleehale.net/blog; and www.shelleeland.com), as well as on electronic bulletin boards and websites, and that she has developed relationships with confidential sources as part of her reporting and investigative processes.  TMM opposed the motion, arguing that Hale is not a "newsperson" within the meaning of the shield law.

The court held hearings on these motions on April 17 and April 24, 2009 and reserved decision for a later date.

UPDATE:

7/02/2009- The court ruled that Hale's conduct was not protected by shield laws and that the defamation suit against her may continue. 

07/22/2009 - Hale filed a motion for reconsideration. 

09/2009 - Hale appealed the trial court's ruling.

04/22/10 - The appeals court ruled that Hale was not entitled to protection under New Jersey's shield law because she was not working as a journalist or a reporter when she posted comments about Too Much Media LLC, according to NJ.com.

06/7/2011 - The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.  It held that New Jersey's shield law requires a party attempting to invoke the law to establish (1) a connection to news media; (2) a purpose to gather, procure, transmit, compile, edit, or disseminate news; and (3), that the materials sought were obtained in the course of pursuing professional newsgathering activities.  The Court noted that "news media" were defined to include both “newspapers, magazines, press associations, news agencies, wire services, radio, [and] television” and “other similar . . . means of disseminating news to the general public."  While the Court recognized that electronic communication could, in certain circumstances, be "similar" to the traditional media listed in the statute, it held that the online message board used by Hale was more a forum for conversation than a medium for dissemination of news and therefore did not satisfy the statute.

Dennis Stewart sued the Oklahoma Publishing Co. and others for publishing the Oklahoma Department of Corrections sex offender registry on NewsOK.com, a regional news website.  The registry incorrectly listed Stewart's address as associated with a registered offender who had previously lived at that address.  The complaint included claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. 

An Oklahoma jury awarded Stewart $200,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the defendants could not be liable because the fair report privilege covered publication of the sex offender registry.

According to the MLRC, NewsOK.com voluntarily removed the registry in February 2002 because of problems with out-of-date addresses in the data provided by the Department of Corrections.

In July 2007, Manchanda Law Offices, PLLC and attorney Rahul Manchanda (collectively "Manchanda") sued Xcentric Ventures over negative "rip-off reports" about the firm 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.  According to the complaint, user statements appearing on the website falsely accused Manchanda of engaging in unethical billing practices and providing poor legal services. Cmplt.¶¶ 11-14. The complaint included claims for defamation and false light, and sought damages, a declaration that the disputed statements were false, and an injunction against future defamatory statements.

On October 10, 2007, Manchanda filed an amended complaint that named former client Nitina Rana as one of the Ripoff Report posters.  The amended complaint shifted the defamation claim to Rana alone and also brought against her a breach of contract claim and a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. The amended complaint also included claims against Xcentric Ventures and founder Edward Magedson for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and tortious interference with contract.

In November, 2007, four months after Manchanda filed the lawsuit, the firm still had not served the defendants with any pleadings. On November 26, 2007, Manchanda filed a motion to withdraw the lawsuit without specifying a reason.  The court granted the order without prejudice.

Manchanda apparently has not refiled the case.

Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler filed suit against anonymous Blogspot bloggers who allegedy impersonated him and girlfriend Erin Brady.  Tyler brought claims of false light invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, and misappropriation of likeness.  

The defendants allegedly created at least two Blogspot blogs that impersonated Tyler and his girlfriend.  The blog tylers849021.blogspot.com (now removed) allegedly featured photos of Tyler and discussed details about Tyler's private life. The blogger posted under the name "STEVEN" and signed each post "ST."  A similar blog -- shelikespurple.blogspot.com -- allegedly impersonated Brady in the same manner. 

Though Tyler named 20 John Does as defendants, his complaint suggests that a single blogger may have engaged in the alleged acts.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants previously had operated similar blogs that Tyler convinced Google to take down in 2007.

Tyler's lawsuit, which he filed in California Superior Court, seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against the blogger(s) as well as damages.