In October 2010, Albert Ahdoot and Colocation America, a company providing computer server co-location to companies operating on the Internet, sued Archie Garga-Richardson, the founder and operator of ScamFraudAlert.com, in California. The plaintiffs claimed that Garga-Richardson committed trade libel and both intentional and negligent interference with economic advantage against the company by posting statements on his website impugning the honesty of Ahdoot and Colocation America.

Garga-Richardson moved on February 4, 2011, to strike the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16.  Garga-Richardson argued that the plantiffs' claims were really an attempt to bring a defamation lawsuit in the guise of trade libel and tortious interference claims.  Garga-Richardson further argued that the plaintiffs' conduct was a matter of public interest and his comments upon that conduct were an exercise of his right of free speech.  As the plaintiffs' claims stem from that exercise, he argued, their lawsuit was a SLAPP and should be struck.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion to strike, arguing that Garga-Richardson had filed his special motion to strike after the 60-day window for filing such a motion had closed.  The plaintiffs also argued that Garga-Richardson's motion was a de facto motion for summary judgment, and that he had not provided the statutory notice required for such a motion under California law.

On April 7, 2011, the court granted Garga-Richardson's special motion to strike.  The court wrote that while Garga-Richardson's motion was a day late, the court would exercise its discretion to consider and rule on the motion.

The lawsuit was the second filed by Colocation America against Garga-Richardson.  Details on the first case, filed in April 2009, are available here.

Virginia Psychologist Ronald S. Federici is suing multiple parties from multiple states (Florida, New Jersey, Nebraska, Colorado) for defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference. Defendants are authors of blogs, forum comments, and websites that were critical of his writings and practices. Plaintiff has also named John Does 1-10, alleging conspiracy with unidentified anonymous bloggers and others.
Public documents on this case are available via Pacer.

Update:

3/28/11 -  The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court also granted the motion of defendants Pignotti and Mercer to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

5/31/11 - After the claims against the named defendants were dismissed, Federici moved to dismiss without prejudice the claims against the John Doe defendants.

6/1/11 - The court granted Federici's motion to dismiss the remaining claims against the John Does. 

In March 2009, MagicJack, LP, the maker of an Internet telephone device and subscription service, sued the parent company of Boing Boing over a blog post by Rob Beschizza criticizing MagicJack's End-User Licensing Agreement (EULA) and various aspects of its website.

The post, published in April 2008 on Boing Boing Gadgets and titled "MagicJack's EULA says it will spy on you and force you into arbitration," notes how the MagicJack EULA purported to allow MagicJack to target ads at users based on their calls and required users to submit to arbitration. The post calls the targeted-ad provision a "systematic privacy invasion" and also makes fun of the visitor counter on MagicJack website, calling it "a fake, a javascript applet that increments itself automatically." Cory Doctorow republished the post on the Boing Boing home page under the title "MagicJack net-phone: swollen pustule of crappy terms of service and spyware."

MagicJack filed a lawsuit for defamation and "unfair competition" in California state court.  Boing Boing moved to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).  In May 2009, the court granted the motion to strike.  It ruled that MagicJack's claims target protected speech activity because the statements "involve consumer information affecting a large number of persons" and that posting on the Boing Boing site "provides information about [MagicJack's] product not only to the 'substantial' number of people who have already purchased the device, but also to other consumers who might be considering purchasing such a device." 

On the merits, the court held that MagicJack had not established a probability of prevailing on its claims. Regarding the homepage counter, the court found that MagicJack's own evidence "shows that the counter is not counting visitors to the website." Regarding the EULA, the court found that Boing Boing's statements, read in context, did not imply that MagicJack was eavesdropping on its customers' calls.  Rather, the court found that Beschizza's statements expressed his non-actionable opinion that "analyzing phone numbers for purposes of targeted advertising amounts to 'spy[ing],' 'snooping,' and 'systematic privacy invasion.'"

On Boing Boing's motion for attorneys' fees, the court made MagicJack pay Boing Boing's fees in the amount of $52,754 and its costs in the amount of $1,221.03. In a post announcing the victory, Beschizza indicated that the award did not quite cover Boing Boing's costs, but they're nevertheless happy with the outcome, adding "we don't like being bullied, and we wanted the chance to tell anyone else threatened by this company what to expect."