Georgia Community Support and Solutions, Inc. (GCSS), a non-profit organization that provides assistance to disabled adults and their families, sent a cease-and-desist letter to Shirley Berryhill, a mother who made critical comments about GCSS in a web posting and in emails to employees of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Georgia Department of Human Resources. In these communications, Berryhill claimed that her son was receiving poor treatment and care from a GCSS-referred service. After Berryhill refused to retract and apologize for the statements she made, GCSS filed suit. See our related database entry, Georgia Community Support and Solutions, Inc. v. Berryhill (Lawsuit).

In September 2000, Ellen Batzel, a California attorney, sued Robert Smith, Ton Cremers, the Netherlands Museums Association ("NMA"), and Mosler, Inc. for defamation after Cremers published on an international email list an email, written by Smith, in which Smith accused Batzel of owning art stolen by the Nazis and being a descendant of Heinrich Himmler. Batzel filed identical lawsuits in both California federal court and North Carolina federal court.

In the summer of 1999, Smith contacted Cremers, who operated the Museum Security Network ("MSN") website, to notify him about his suspicions regarding Batzel, for whom Smith worked as a handyman at the time.  Smith apparently intended the email to be a private communication, and was unaware of the MSN mailing list that Cremers edited and published.  Cremers posted Smith's email to the MSN list, which is distributed via email and also posted on the MSN site, without notifying Smith that he was doing so.

Batzel became aware of the MSN list posting about her and contacted Cremers within a few months. Cremers in turn contacted Smith for clarification about his statements.  Smith affirmed his statements, but told Cremers that he would never have sent Cremers the email had he known it would appear on the MSN list. Batzel denied Smith's accusations, and in turn accused Smith of trying to defame her because she refused to help him find contacts regarding a screenplay he wrote.

Batzel filed lawsuits in both California and North Carolina in September 2000.  Smith and Mosler, Inc., a sponsor of the MSN list, both filed an answer in California, and Batzel dropped them from the North Carolina lawsuit.  The NMA did not file an answer in either suit, and the California court granted default judgment against it. 

Unaware of the North Carolina lawsuit, Cremers filed an answer in California and moved to dismiss Batzel's case under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).  In July 2001, the district court denied Cremer's motion, ruling that Batzel had shown sufficient probability of prevailing on her claims to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. The court dismissed Batzel's claims against Mosler, Inc., finding that sponsorship of the MSN list was not sufficient to impose liability.

Batzel and Cremers both appealed.  In June 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Mosler dismissal and vacated the district court's ruling on Cremers' anti-SLAPP motion.  While the court of appeals agreed that Batzel had shown a likelihood of prevailing in her defamation claim, it ruled that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230") controlled the case.  The court held that, if Cremers had reasonably believed that Smith provided the email to be published on the MSN list, then CDA 230 protected him from defamation liability for publishing the content of Smith's email. Because the facts were not clear from the record, the court remanded the case to district court to determine whether Cremers had a reasonable belief that Smith had provided his email for publication.

Batzel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Court denied her petition. Meanwhile, Cremers became aware of Batzel's lawsuit in North Carolina, for which he had never been served. The North Carolina court dismissed Batzel's lawsuit with prejudice in April 2001 for failure to prosecute. Cremers moved for summary judgment in California in November 2004, arguing that the doctrine of res judicata barred Batzel from suing Cremers in the California action. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case against Cremers in March 2005.

It is unclear what happened regarding Batzel's claims against Smith.  According to the California district court's docket, all motions and orders mailed to Smith from 2004 on were returned for failure of delivery.

In October 1998, Intel Corporation sued Ken Hamidi, a former employee, in California state court on claims of trepass to chattels and nuisance. The dispute arose when Hamidi created the Former and Current Employees of Intel ("FACE-Intel") website and began sending mass emails critical of Intel to its employees. Intel asked Hamidi to stop sending the emails and sued him when he refused.

The California trial court granted Intel a preliminary injunction prohibiting Hamidi from sending further emails to Intel employees. During the course of litigation, Intel dropped its nuisance claim and gave up its demand for money damages. It then moved for summary judgment on its trespass to chattels claim, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the company in June 1999. At this point, the court permanently enjoined Hamidi from sending email to Intel addresses.

Hamidi appealed the ruling, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU each submitted amici curiae briefs on his behalf. Nonetheless, in December 2001, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.

In January 2002, Hamidi petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the case. In June 2003, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' rulings and dismissed the case against Hamidi. It ruled that Intel's trespass to chattels claim failed as a matter of law because Hamidi's emails did not damage or impair Intel's computers. The court indicated that, had the quantity of Hamidi's emails been high enough to damage Intel's systems, trespass to chattels might apply. In this case, however, "the claimed injury [was] located in the disruption or distraction caused to recipients by the contents of the e-mail messages, an injury entirely separate from, and not directly affecting, the possession or value of personal property." Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296, 300-01 (Cal. 2003).

In February 2006, David Melius filed a lawsuit against Maple Area Residents, Inc. (MARI), a neighborhood association in the Carrollton neighborhood of New Orleans that had opposed the construction of a new bar Melius wished to build, and two of its board members, David Keiffer and Thomas Milliner. The suit alleges defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements the defendants made on the group’s website, Maple Area Residents, Inc., at city council meetings, in letters to officials, and in an appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments.

Melius claimed, among other things, defamation based on defendants’ statements that he "had received special treatment from the City[,] had made a ‘backroom deal’ with City officials," and "had broken various promises." Melius v. Keiffer, 2008 WL 659582 (La. App. 4 Cir., March 12, 2008).

On August 16, 2006, the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish dismissed the lawsuit pursuant to Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP statute, La. C.C.P. art. 971. On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed the dimissal, finding that the defendants' statements "fall under the purview of protected free speech [regarding a public issue]." Slip Op. at 6.

On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal of Lousiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the lower court's dismissal.

On March 13, 2008, Higher Balance Institute (HBI), which markets metaphysical products and education programs, filed a defamation lawsuit against the alternative news website Signs of the Times and its operators, the Quantum Future Group and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Only Quantum Future Group has been served. HBI claims that employees of the Quantum Future Group posted defamatory statements about it on one of the website's forums. According to the complaint, these statements include allegedly false claims that HBI is a "front for pedophilia," that HBI is "conning the public," that meditation, as sold by HBI is an act of "falling into confluence with a psychopathic reality," and that HBI is a "cointelpro" organization. Cmplt. ¶23. (The Signs of the Times website uses the term "cointelpro" to refer to organizations that it claims perpetuate the ethos of a 1970s FBI counter intelligence program designed to quell domestic dissent.)

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Oregon, contains claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional interference with business relationships and prospective economic advantage. HBI seeks over $4 million in damages and an injunction. On April 25, 2008, Quantum Future Group moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150.

Update:

4/25/2008 - Quantum Future Group filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for lack of personal jurisdiction.

5/19/2008 - Quantum Future School, Signs of the Times, and Knight-Jadezyk filed special motions to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute and joined Quantum Future Group's motion to strike. 

12/18/2008 - The district court granted the defendants' motions to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute. The court's decision relied in part on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

06/18/2009- The court granted in part the defendants' motion for attorney's fees. The court found the request of over $135,000 to be excessive, and so awarded $51,500.