Denise McVea, a journalist and author, sued Alamo historian James Crisp in Texas federal court for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Crisp criticized McVea's research and book about in forum posts on a prominent Alamo history website, www.thealamofilm.com. 

According to plaintiff's complaint, Crisp made the following allegedly defamatory statements:

• "when confronted by logical contraditions in her argument, Plaintiff simply denies them."
• "I was willing to give her research the benefit of the dbout, but ultimately unwilling to lend my support to a work which stretched both the evidence and credulity, as her book clearly does."
• "On the other hand, Dunn, after years of archival research carried out in his spare time, has now brought forth a succinct article which, using passport applications, census data, newspaper accounts, and ships' passenger lists, makes a rock-solid case that Denise's provocative and interesting theory is wrong -- just flat wrong."
• "McVea, I have discovered -- in large part thanks to this forum -- is at her nastiest when her arguments are at their weakest -- and she is plenty nasty just now."
• "The documents which Dunn has used -- documents either ignored, not found, or suppressed by Denise McVea -- are in the public domain, and available for anyone to check."
• "Please read very carefully any 'rebuttal' submitted by Ms. McVea, and check her references with equal care.  That's what I did when I found that her arguments in previous submissions -- arguments based on prodigious and ingenious archival research -- nevertheless simply did not match the documentary evidence." 

Crisp moved to dismiss McVea's claims due to the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Crisp and McVea's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The court ruled that Crisp was subject to Texas's personal jurisdiction, because Crisp's "comments . . . aimed at a Texas resident and directed to a predominately Texas audience on a website devoted to Texas history" established sufficient contacts with the state.

But the court granted Crisp's motion to dismiss due to failure to state a claim.  The court ruled that given the context of the online forum and the nature of the discussion, the disputed comments could not be reasonably found to have a defamatory meaning, but rather were protected expressions of opinion.

McVea appealed the court's ruling.  On Aug. 27, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous.  The court held that "a person of ordinary intelligence would not find Crisp's words reasonably capable of defamatory meaning."

Pet shop owner Robert Novak, operator of Petswarehouse.com, sued Active Window Productions ("AWP"), host of the Aquatic Plants Digest ("APD"), a forum and email list for aquatic plant gardeners and hobbyists, and several individuals who criticized Pets Warehouse.  Novak added further claims against the individuals after they organized to protest Novak's lawsuit.  Novak sued in New York federal court on claims of cybersquatting, defamation, trademark dilution and infringement, trade libel, tortious interference with business, false light, unfair competition, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to court documents, Dan Resler, a computer scientist, posted a message in May 2001 that warned: "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't." He went on to detail his gripes about the company's customer service, based on what he said was a delayed shipment of plants he'd ordered.  Resler later followed up with this post amending his previous warning: "to clarify: Pet Warehouse OK, Pets Warehouse NOT." 

Other members of the list soon added their own complaints, including the following alleged statements recounted in the plaintiff's complaint:

• [a]s a source for purchasing plants, they do not have a good reputation (Defendant Jared Weinberger - May 21, 2001)
• But you don’t have to take my word as the last word on their horrible service. Feeling lucky? Go ahead - try them out yourselves. After all, it’s only your time and money, right? (Defendant Dan Resler - May 18, 2001)
• They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it’s more like 20%. Or less. If at all. (Defendant Thomas Barr - May 17, 2001)
• Given the continual flow of negative comments about PetSwarehouse that I’ve read for nearly two years on this list, I’ve decided to add a warning (and figure this is better than simply removing them. (Defendant Weinberger - May 18, 2001)
• Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you’ll be swearing! (May 22, 2001)
• I believe they call that deceptive advertising. Or bait-and-switch. Take your pick. (Defendant Sean Carney - May 16, 2001)

After seeing the criticism, Novak filed suit against the posters for libel and defamation seeking damages of $1 million, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking damages of $15 million.

The defendants began to organize against the lawsuit via online forums and the APD list, and sought donations to their legal defense fund.  In organizing and promoting their legal defense, the defendants referenced Pets Warehouse.  In response, Novak brought additional claims against the defendants, including trademark violations and business torts. 

As a result, several defendants settled with Novak in December 2001 and agreed to remove any posts or messages "concerning or referring to" Novak. According to the "stipulation of settlement" posted on the defendants' information site, Dan Resler also agreed to pay $4,150.

In 2007, Novak amended his complaint against AWP, AWP's editor Mark Rosenstein, and AWP poster Robert Hudson. AWP and  Mark Rosenstein answered, denying Novak's claims and invoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as granting them immunity from any defamation or infringement stemming from APD posters' comments. They also brought counterclaims against Novak for violations of New York Civil Rights Law.

Update:

8/7/2008 - Court ordered that a status conference will be held in Courtroom 820 of the Federal Courthouse in Central Islip on September 5, 2008 at 11:30 a.m 

9/19/2008 - Status conference held. Court ordered a pretrial conference for May 29, 2009.

Deep Blue Marine, its CEO Wilf Blum, and Alexander Lindale LLC sued former Deep Blue operations manager Edward Krajewski after Krajewski criticized the plaintiffs and allegedly disclosed Deep Blue proprietary information on several online investor forums. The plaintiffs sought an injunction in Utah federal court against Krajewski to prevent him from posting any further criticism or materials. They also brought claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with economic advantage, breach of contract (including publication of trade secrets), and breach of convenant of good faith.

In May 2008, Deep Blue moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Krajewski. The court decided the motion ex parte after satisfying itself that Krajewski had received notice of the hearing. It granted the motion, issuing an order prohibiting Krajewski from

In July 2008, Krajewski, acting pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. He also submitted an affidavit explaining that he lacked sufficient financial resources to litigate the case in Utah and requesting that the court transfer the case to Pennsylvania, his home state. On July 22, the court denied the motion for an extension of time to file a brief, noting that Krajewski did not identify what motion he would be addressing and that no motions were currently pending. The court added that Krajewski could inititiate a motion and file a brief in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules.

Update:

1/15/2009 - Action dismissed without prejudice subject to parties' settlement agreement