On April 5, 2010, T&J Towing of Kalamazoo, Michigan, filed a defamation lawsuit  against Justin Kurtz, a 21-year-old student at Western Michigan University. The dispute revolves around Kurtz's creation of a Facebook page called “Kalamazoo Residents against T&J Towing.” T&J seeks $750,000 in damages and a court order that Kurtz “immediately cease and desist any further libelous and slanderous written claims” about the company.

According to press reports, Kurtz created the page days after T&J towed his car from the parking lot of his apartment complex. On the page, Kurtz claims that T&J removed his parking permit and improperly towed his car.  As of the time of writing, the Facebook group had over 13,800 members, many of whom have posted comments about their own negative experiences with the company.

The complaint alleges that Kurtz "has falsely and publicly claimed that Plaintiffs have towed vehicles where no violation has occurred and which claims are untrue." Cmpt. ¶ 4.  It also suggests that Kurtz is responsible for the postings of other Facebook users, alleging that Kurtz "has absolutely no way of knowing whether or not all of the written submissions to his website have any truth or validity." Id.¶ 7.

Kurtz filed an answer on April 30, 2010 and asserted counterclaims for violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and abuse of process.

In September and October 2009, Aldo Cipriani, Town Counsel for Southborough, MA, exchanged letters with Susan Fitzgerald, publisher of MySouthborough.com, a blog dedicated to local politics. Cipriani's letters requested that Fitzgerald turn over the identity of a commenter going by the moniker "Marty" and cautioned Fitzgerald to "more closely monitor remarks made on the communication site ensuring that when individuals speak to issues they do so accurately and without false allegations of violating state law." A letter from late October also advised her to retain records of IP addresses and other information.

According to the Boston Globe, the dispute revolves around meetings of a search committee set up to select a new police chief:

Marty’s posts questioned whether certain search committee meetings held in executive session, behind closed doors, violated the state’s open meeting laws. The posts insinuated the committee had unfair partiality toward the police force’s interim chief, Jane Moran, during the search process. The longtime department veteran was hired for the permanent position in November. (source)

According to MetroWest Daily News, Cipriani's September 22 letter asserted that "[c]ertain comments have been made about the citizen volunteer duly-appointed Police Chief Search Committee wrongly suggesting improprieties under state law," and asked "that you . . .  furnish the contact information for 'Marty' and/or his attorney so that we may raise our concerns directly." 

In a September 30 response, Fitzgerald refused to turn over Marty's identity.  She later told the Globe that she considered Marty's statements expressions of opinion, noting that “I may not agree, but I believe it is the commenter’s right to say it.’’  

The issue resurfaced in March when Selectmen Sal Giorlandino and Bonnie Phaneuf said recent comments posted under a police lieutenant story compelled them to consider legal action.  Selectman Giorlandino told the Globe: "References that say I'm not masculine enough to do my job, and another reference that involved burning Bonnie's (Phaneuf) undergarments, went over the line."

In February 2010, Scott P., an unnamed plaintiff proceeding anonymously, filed a lawsuit against Craigslist and other defendants in California state court after his co-workers allegedly posted a series of Craiglist ads impersonating him.

The complaint alleges that, in March 2009, co-workers posted a series of ads on the "casual encounters" section of Craigslist pretending to be Scott P. looking for gay sex. Scott P. complained to Craigslist several times asking the site to remove the ads and to prevent future ads impersonating him.  According to the complaint, Craigslist staff removed the ads and assured him that they would "take care of it," which he understood as an undertaking to prevent further harassing posts. 

Despite these communications, a number of additional posts appeared in April 2009.  These ads gave Scott P.'s name, phone number and home address and "invit[ed] people to go to [Scott P.'s] home with friends to pick up large, heavy furniture and items for free or at very low prices." According to the complaint, approximately 50 to 60 people appeared at Scott P.'s home as a result of the ads and "entered onto his real property and demanded the free property advertised on . . . Craigslist."

Scott P. asserted a number of claims against his co-workers and employer over the fake ads, including defamation, false light, intrusion, publication of private facts, and discrimination. With respect to Craigslist, Scott P. asserted a claim for promissory estoppel, alleging that he reasonably relied on Craiglist promise that it would prevent future fraudulent postings in his name. (This may be the first case we've seen relying on Barnes v. Yahoo! to get around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.) Scott P. also asserted a claim for "unfair competition" against Craigslist. 

In March, Scott P. dismissed his employer Foster Farms from the case.

Update:

5/3/2010 - Craigslist filed a demurrer to the complaint.

5/17/2010 - Scott P. filed a response. 

5/25/2010 - Craigslist filed a reply. 

6/2/2010 - The court held a hearing and overruled the demurrer on the promissory estoppel count, holding that the complaint "sufficiently pleaded an agreement supported by promissory estoppel." The court granted a temporary stay of discovery to allow Craigslist to file a writ of petition to the Court of Appeal. 

Christine LaPausky, owner of the D'ames Day Spa in San Diego, brought a class action lawsuit against Yelp! Inc. in California federal court, alleging violations of California unfair competition law. The lawsuit came days after another small business owner filed a similar class action complaint against Yelp. 

The complaint is substantially similar to the first class action complaint and alleges an extortion scheme, in which Yelp! supposedly promises to positively manipulate user reviews in exchange for the purchase of advertising, and implicitly threatens to detrimentally manipulate reviews if business owners refuse.  Like the first complaint, this one relies heavily on press accounts detailing complaints from other businesses about the alleged extortionate behavior. 

Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppleman responded with a blog post calling the allegations "false and easily refuted." He added:

These copy cat suits get filed in what is known as a "race to the courthouse," where lawyers jockey to be named the lead lawyer of the case and take the biggest share of legal fees; being among the first to file a suit increases the chance of being put in charge of the case.

So, as I said: it's not a surprise to see another such frivolous suit. In fact, it's kind of expected.

This doesn't change a thing however: this suit, like the other, is without merit, we will fight it aggressively and we believe we will win.

This case presumably will be consolidated with the other class action lawsuit pending in the same district court.