Two female Yale Law School students, captioned as Does I & II, sued Anthony Ciolli, the former chief education director of the popular law school admissions forum, AutoAdmit, and a host of pseudonymous users of the forum over vulgar, sexually explicit, and threatening comments posted about them on the forum. In addition to making numerous derogatory and sexually explicit statements about the two students, pseudonymous users of the site created another website, t14talent: The Most Appealing Women @ Top Law Schools (now defunct), and posted photographs of one of the students without her permission. (Although the complaint is not entirely clear on this point, the student claims copyright ownership in these photographs in addition to publicity rights, indicating that she may have been the creator of the photos and posted them online.)

According to the complaint, the two students complained about the forum postings to the AutoAdmit staff, but AutoAdmit did not remove the material. Ciolli disputes that he had any authority to remove the offensive postings.

In June 2007, the two students sued in federal court in Connecticut, asserting claims of defamation, copyright infringement, unauthorized appropriation of name and likeness, unreasonable publicity given to another's life, false light invasion of privacy, and other torts. Soon after filing, they moved to proceed anonymously, and the court granted that request.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to modify the court's scheduling order in order to give them time to investigate the identity of the pseudonymous defendants and to amend their complaint. The court granted the initial request and two subsequent requests for thirty-day extensions, the last of which was requested on October 4. According to a tip posted on David Lat's Above the Law blog, it is unlikely that the court will grant a fourth extension, so an amended complaint may be forthcoming relatively soon.

Update:

11/8/07 - Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping Ciolli from the lawsuit.

1/24/08 - Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery seeking to uncover the identities of the pseudonymous posters listed in the complaint.

1/29/08 - Court granted motion for expedited discovery.

2/22/08 - Pseudonymous defendant "AK47" moved to quash the subpoena directed at AT&T requesting information about his identity.

3/2/08 - Plaintiffs deposed former defendant Anthony Ciolli, at which Ciolli acknowledged that his AOL Instant Messenger username is "AnthonyCiolli."

3/4/08 - Former defendant Anthony Ciolli filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and other defendants for wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contract, and unauthorized use of name or likeness.

3/18/08 - Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to AOL seeking the names of "all persons who have registered or used" the username "AnthonyCiolli" and related information about the account, including "other user names and login IDs and/or Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses associated with the IM username 'AnthonyCiolli.'"

4/7/08 - Ciolli filed a motion to quash the AOL subpoena in federal district court in Virginia.

06/13/08 - The court denied AK47's motion to quash the subpoena seeking his identity from AT&T.

08/05/08 - Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names Mathew C. Ryan (previously known by username ":D") as a defendant. Legal Satyricon "can confirm with 100% certainty that the guy in the complaint is neither an attorney nor a law professor."

8/13/08 - Defendant "a horse walks into a bar", a.k.a Ryan Mariner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff's have stated no cause of action against him and that they have failed to prosecute the action against him despite offers to accept service made through counsel. 

9/10/08 - Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to Mariner's motion to dismiss.

9/19/08 - The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that the plaintiffs' subpoena to AOL seeking the names of "all persons who have registered or used" the username "AnthonyCiolli" was facially invalid because it was issued from the wrong court.  The court determined that it should have issued from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Because the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, it did not reach the merits of Anthony Ciolli's motion to quash. 

10/26/08 - Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement and request for dismissal against defendant "Whamo."

3/31/09 - Pennsylvania federal court largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Anthony Ciolli's complaint in Ciolli v. Iravani, but gave defendants leave to renew their motion after jurisdictional discovery.  The court also struck certain allegations from the complaint relating to settlement negotiations in the Connecticut lawsuit. 

4/30/09 - Connecticut federal court denies Matthew Ryan's motion to dismiss. 

5/21/09 - Matthew Ryan files his answer to the second amended complaint in Connecticut federal court.

9/29/09 - Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal of Action Against Defendant ":D", A.K.A. Matthew C. Ryan

10/16/09 - Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Action Against Remaining Defendants Without Prejudice by Doe 1, Doe 2

10/23/09 - Court dismissed case

Anthony DiMeo III, blueberry farm heir and operator of publicity firm Renamity, threw a New Years Eve party on December 31, 2005 that did not end well -- the district court judge referred to it as "the ... party from hell." Tucker Max, Internet celebrity and operator of www.tuckermax.com, hosts a forum on the aforementioned Web site in which anonymous posters ridiculed both the party and DiMeo himself. DiMeo sued Max for defamation in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, and Max then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See DiMeo v. Max, 433 F.Supp.2d 523, 533 (E.D. Pa. 2006). DiMeo added claims for violations of telecommunications-harassment statute 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(c) and for punitive damages, though the district court dismissed both with little discussion (the former primarily because it was based on a criminal statute that offered no private cause of action, and the latter because it was a legal remedy rather than a claim). The court similarly dismissed DiMeo's motion to amend his complaint, which the court saw as a futile attempt to repair the 223(a)(1)(c) claim.

Max filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court granted with prejudice. Following a typical analysis of a case governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), the court held that Section 230 barred DiMeo's defamation claim because: a.) Max, as the operator of the Web site and forum, was a provider of an interactive computer service; b.) DiMeo's claims treated Max as a publisher or speaker of information; and c.) the forum posts were information provided by a third-party content provider. The court noted that DiMeo did not allege that Max was the author of the disputed content, and thus it necessarily was third-party content. Because providers may not be treated as the publishers of third-party content under Section 230, dismissal was appropriate. DiMeo appealed the dismissal of the defamation claim and the dismissal of the motion to amend to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Update:

On Sept. 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. In a short opinion marked "not precedential," the Third Circuit followed the district court's reasoning in finding TuckerMax.com to be an interactive computer service that was protected from liability for third-party speech under Section 230. As of Sept. 25, 2007, the case has not been appealed.

Landmark Education is a for-profit company engaged in the business of making "education programs" available to the general public and corporations, on subjects including communication, time management, and productivity. Its basic program is "The Forum" -- a three day/one evening seminar directed at "enhancing communication, creativity, and productivity for participants." Participants in the Forum may and are urged to take additional seminars given by Landmark and to recruit new participants for Landmark programs.

Rick Ross runs nonprofit websites, www.rickross.com , www.culteducation.com, and www.cultnews.com, through his non-profit entity, the Rick Ross Institute of New Jersey. The websites provide information to the public about cults and other controversial groups. On the website, Ross solicits contributions and sells his books and multimedia materials. Ross also operates a for-profit business "de-programming" the victims of cults, which is advertised on his sites.

Ross included Landmark on his list of organizations refered to as "controversial groups, some called 'cults," which included organizations such as the Aryan Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda.

Visitors to Ross's sites posted various anonymous "visitor comments" critical of Landmark that allegedly gave the impression that Landmark's programs are cult-like and present risks of physical or mental harm to participants. Other comments accused Landmark of "hypnotizing" and "braninwashing" participants, attempting "cult recruitment" and "mind control." Others indicated that the Landmark Forum "used bright fluorescent lighting with no windows, didn't allow food or drink in the room, and required such long hours," and that participants in the Landmark Forum who wanted to leave were met with "guilt, manipulation and implied threats" and those who did leave were "harassed" by Landmark representatives seeking to convince them to return. The sites contained a disclaimer displayed at the bottom of the visitor comments pages indicating that "the Rick Ross Institute, its Advsiory Board and/or Rick Ross do not necessarily endorse or support any of the views expressed within the documents, articles, reports, and testimonies archivied within this website, with the exception of those specifically so attributed."

Ross's sites also posted anonymously authored "personal stories" detailing unpleasant experiences that befell the authors or someone close to them during their participation in one of Landmark's programs. Some of these personal stories had provacative titles, including "This cannot be healthy emotionally" and "Landmark Education destroyed my life -- from the Forum to the psych ward." These personal stories included statements to the effect that Landmark's programs make a "deliberate assault on your mind," are a "form of mind control," and have "cult attributes."

The websites also hosted a number of articles by third-party authors concerning Landmark, with titles like "Brain Wash," "Mindbreakers," and "Microsoft Paid for Culty Clinics," which had been previously published in other publications.

Additionally, visitors to the websites' forum sections, writing under psuedonyms, posted a number of critical comments accusing Landmark of mind control, brainwashing, and the like. The websites posted rules relating to the forums, stating "the moderators of this forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, but it is impossible to review every message. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of this forum, Cult Education.com, Rick Ross.com and/or developers of bulletin software, will be held responsible for the content of any message."

Ross's websites also included links to other websites containing negative content relating to Landmark. The links were accompanied by a disclaimer: "The Rick A. Ross Institute, its Advisory Board and/or Rick Ross do not necessarily endorse or support any of the views expressed within the linked websites listed at the Links page of this website."

At the time of the lawsuit, apparently a search for "Landmark Education" on Google produced Ross's websites on the results list.

Ross also allegedly made several statements to the news media radio shows, indicating that certain of Landmark's methods were "cult-like" and that participants of Landmark's programs had suffered negative mental health effects.

In June 2004, Landmark sued Ross and the Ross Institute in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims of product disparagement, tortious interference with ongoing and propspective business relations, trademark disparagement under the Lanham Act, consumer fraud and unfair competition under New Jersey law, and prima facie tort.

Ross and the Institute filed an answer in September 2004 without moving to dismiss. In it, they asserted various defenses, including that the statements were statements of opinion, the fair comment privilege, and lack of actual malice.

The details are not clear, but Landmark appears to have voluntarily dismissed the case in December 2005.

In August 2005, Software Development and Investment of Nevada ("Software Development"), a Nevada corporation in the business of "internet advertising and internet placement optimization" under the name Traffic-Power.com, sued Aaron Wall and an unknown number of anonymous users of Wall's blog for libel and misappropriation of trade secrets. At the time of the suit, Wall was a Pennsylvania resident and a blogger who wrote about search engine optimization on his blog, "SEO Book.com."

According to Software Development's complaint in Nevada state court, a number of unknown persons disseminated information about its marketing strategy and solicitation procedures over the internet. These unknown persons allegedly posted this proprietary information on Wall's blog and other "publicly available areas of the internet."

The complaint also alleged that Wall and his anonymous co-defendants published false and defamatory statements about it and its business over the internet. The complaint did not specify any statements, but an opinion from the federal district court during the litigation identified the following statements that Software Development contended were defamatory:

• a statement that Software Development is among a group of people that Wall considered "fraudsters and hucksters";
• a statement that Software Development's website had been "banned by the search engines";
• a statement that Software Development used "idiotic high pressure salesmen" to sell its "shit services";
• a statement that Software Development's services "suck";
• a statement that people who buy Software Development's services get "screwed"; and
• a statement that Wall would "need to shower at least 6 times a day" if he worked for "a company as dirty" as Software Development.

Wall also allegedly linked to other sites that made disparaging comments about Software Development. Software Dev. & Inv. v. Wall, No. 2:05-cv-01109, slip op., at 2 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2006).

In September 2005, Wall removed the lawsuit to federal court. He later moved to dismiss, and the federal court dismissed the action in February 2006, holding that it had no personal jurisdiction over Wall. Software Dev. & Inv. v. Wall, No. 2:05-cv-01109, slip op. (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2006).

In its order, the court concluded, among other things, that Wall's blog was "passive" despite the ability of reader's to post comments. Id. at 3. The determination of a website's "passive" or "active" character is important in the legal analysis because the more "active" a site is with respect to a state's citizens, the more justification there is for that state to assert personal jurisdiction over it. The court also concluded that there was no evidence that Wall had "expressly aimed the offensive communications at the Sate of Nevada, knowing that the communications would cause harm to Plaintiff in Nevada." Id. at 7. The court never reached the CDA 230 issue.

In its order dismissing the case, the court gave Software Development permission to file an amended complaint, but Software Development did not do so, and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution in June 2007.