In October 2009, Donald Marvin Jones, a law professor at the University of Miami School of Law, sued David Lat and David Minkin, editor and publisher of the popular law gossip blog Above the Law (ATL), as well as ATL's parent company, Dead Horse Media. The complaint seeks $22 million in damages and an injunction "enjoining Abovethelaw to remove all articles and posts concerning Professor Jones."

The lawsuit revolves around a series of posts ATL published after Jones was arrested in 2007 on suspicion of trying to solicit sex from a prostitute. In these posts, ATL made fun of Jones—calling him "The Nutty Professor"—and posted a screenshot of the "incident report" for his arrest.  In one post, Lat published a photo/graphic mash-up collage forwarded to him by a reader that—according to the complaint—"depict[ed] Professor Jones as a drug dealer and a pimp or both."  The graphic featured one photograph of Jones superimposed on a $20 bill and another talking up a group of prostitutes. 

According to the National Law Journal, Jones pleaded not guilty to the solicitation charge, and the authorities later dismissed the charge and expunged it from Jones' record.

Jones' complaint alleges that ATL infringed his copyright by publishing the mash-up collage because a photo in it was "stolen from the UM website without permission." There is no allegation that Jones, as opposed to the University, owns the copyright in the photo or that the photo is registered with the copyright office. Jones also alleges that publication of the collage casts him in a false light by portraying him as a "dope dealer, pimp, and criminal."

Finally, the complaint alleges that ATL invaded his privacy and cast him in a false light by publishing the "incident report" despite dismissal and expungement of the solicitation charges.  Jones' claim that ATL made "private records public" is complicated by Fla. Stat. § 119.105, which provides that "[p]olice reports are public records except as otherwise made exempt or confidential," and says that, even in the case of exempt or confidential police reports, "[t]his section does not prohibit the publication of such information to the general public by any news media legally entitled to possess that information."

On November 4, 2009, after much criticism of the lawsuit in the legal blogosphere, Professor Jones voluntarily dismissed the action.

In March 2008, Bennoti, Inc., an espresso machine marketer and merchandiser, sued consumer review site Complaints Board and its owner, Elizabeth Arden, for defamation of business reputation (trade libel) and unfair competition. In March 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York discontinued the action with prejudice, noting that "[i]t [had] been reported to this Court that the plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this action."

According to the complaint, Complaints Board published six false or inflated consumer complaints about Bennoti. One complaint featured a photograph of a Bennoti espresso machine, to which Defendant added "a comic strip style balloon" featuring the words "Don't call us! We're busy cheating customers!"

The complaint also alleged that Complaints Board diverted "hits" away from Bennoti's website, and in doing so exposed consumers to defamatory remarks and "pirate[d] the millions of dollars Plaintiff spends to develop consumer awareness of its coffee products brand, and then diverts those consumers to Plaintiff's competitors."

The complaint asserted that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not shield Complaints Board because the website allegedly created fictional complaints and inserted "headings, report titles and messages for the reports."

Rosenberg, a professional photographer, sued the operator of a Charlottesville, VA community blog (now defunct) for copyright infringement, claiming it failed to remove images of his photograph that were posted (twice) to its site by unknown third parties.  The complaint also included a claims for removal or alteration of copyright management information, because the images on cvillain.com were stripped of identifying material attached to the original picture (presumably the copyright symbol, name, and year that appear when mousing over the original photo).

On July 6, 2009, the parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice because they had reached a settlement in the amount of $750.

A Maryland prison director filed a defamation lawsuit against Maryland political blogger Joseph Albero for allowing an allegedly defamatory user comment to appear on his website. Douglas Devenyns claims an anonymous commenter on Albero's Salisbury News blog falsely stated he was a "sexual predator" who shortened female inmates sentences in exchange for sex, according to The Daily Times.

According to Delmarva Dealings, the suit seeks $150,000 in damages. The complaint tries to get around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by arguing that Albero is liable for the comment because he determines which comments to publish and whether he will edit them first.

Update:

9/10/2009 - Albero filed a motion to dismiss under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  He argues that the act protects third parties even if they perform some editorial functions.  

11/30/2009 - The court granted Albero's motion for summary judgment.

Former University of Minnesota employee Jerry Moore filed a lawsuit in June 2009 against blogger John Hoff, online commenter Don Allen, and five anonymous commenters who Moore says published intentionally defamatory content in order to get him fired. The lawsuit was filed in Minnesota state court, according to the blog Prattles.

On his blog, The Adventures of Johnny Northside, Hoff criticized the university's hiring of Moore and wrote about a lawsuit Moore was involved in. According to the Minnesota Independent, the complaint alleges that Hoff is "disentitled" to First Amendment protections because of his allegedly biased writing. The complaint also alleges Hoff allowed his blog's comments section to become a "defamation zone," according to Prattles.

According to the University of Minnesota Daily student newspaper, Moore’s employment with the university ended June 22, less than two months after he began work on a temporary basis at the school's Urban Research and Outreach Center.

Updates:

On March 7, 2011, a jury trial commenced.

On March 11, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Moore. The jury found that the statement, "Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved with a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.," was true. The jury nevertheless ruled in favor of Moore on his claims for intentional interference with an employment contract and intentional interference with prospective employment advantage. The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for the loss of benefits of the contract, and $25,000 for emotional distress or actual harm to reputation.

On March 23, 2011, the Minnesota Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists filed an amicus brief with respect to Hoff's post-trial motions. The brief stated that Minnesota courts, and both federal and state courts, have rejected attempts by plaintiffs to disguise defamation claims under other causes of action. The brief also argued that Minnesota courts have held that providing truthful information cannot provide the basis for an action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

On April 1, 2011, Hoff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law stating that the factual findings of the jury did not support a verdict in favor of Moore, and asking the court to enter judgment in favor of Hoff on all counts. In the alternative, Hoff sought a new trial. The memorandum in support of the motion stated that tortious interference claims could not be based on true statements, and that the First Amendment barred Hoff's claims for tortious interference. In the alternative, the motion stated that Hoff was entitled to a new trial because the jury was improperly swayed by emotion, the jury instructions contained a plain error, and the verdict was contrary to law and unsupported by evidence.

On May 25, 2011, Moore filed an opposition to Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

On May 26, 2011, Hoff filed a reply to Moore's opposition.

On August 22, 2011, the district court denied Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law in its entirety. The court held that the jury's findings on tortious interference were supported by the record developed during the jury trial, and that the jury's findings on the special verdict form could be reconciled if the jury had determined that Hoff's conduct taken as a whole (and not his true speech) constituted tortious interference. The district court also denied Hoff's motion for a new trial.

On October 26, 2011, Hoff filed a notice of appeal in the district court.

On January 30, 2012, Hoff filed a brief in support of his appeal in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, appealing the district court's denial of Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The brief stated that Minnesota law does not permit liability for tortious interference to attach to true statements; that the record did not contain evidence to support the jury's findings; and that the trial court had failed to consider the requirements of the First Amendment in its order and memorandum denying Hoff's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

On February 2, 2012, the Minnesota Pro Chapter, Society of Professional Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics & Law filed an amicus brief in support of Hoff.

On March 22, 2012, Moore filed his Appellee Brief, arguing that Hoff had failed to correctly appeal the instructions to the jury at the trial court.

On April 10, 2012, Hoff filed a Reply Brief.

On May 23, 2012, the parties argued before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Update:

On August 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hoff, reversing the jury's verdict and remanding the case. The Court held that a true statement cannot support a claim for tortious interference with contract or prospective business relationships, and that when protected speech is inextricably intertwined with allegedly tortious conduct, there can be no liability as a matter of law.

Attorneys at Favaro & Gorman Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Jennifer Meale and Xcentric Ventures, LLC over allegedly defamatory posts made anonymously by Meale on Ripoff Report, a consumer review website.  It is not clear how the law determined that Meale was responsible for the anonymous reports.

According to the Northwest Herald, Xcentric was named as a defendant because it failed to remove the allegedly defamatory postings despite repeated requests from Favaro & Gorman.  Xcentric will likely raise section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a defense.

On February 13, 2009, Tim Blixseth, a real estate developer and shareholder in the bankrupt Montana ski resort Yellowstone Club, filed a complaint in Massachusets federal court against Bresnan Communications, a New York-based ISP, and 100 unnamed defendants.  The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Blixseth was entitled to obtain from Bresnan Communications the identity of one of its subscribers, an anonymous commenter to the NewWest.net website going by the moniker "Sharkbait."

Blixseth alleged that Sharkbait made a death threat against him in the comments section to an NewWest article on the Yellowstone Club bankruptcy. Counsel for Blixseth contacted NewWest shortly after the alleged death threat was posted, and the site's publisher agreed to remove the comment and disclose Sharkbait's IP address.

The same day the complaint was filed, Blixseth served a subpoena on Bresnan Communications requesting that it provide identifying information for Sharkbait's IP address.  Counsel for Bresnan Communications objected to the subpoena, citing federal law prohibiting cable operators from divulging customer information without a court order and notice to the subscriber.

Blixseth then filed an emergency motion seeking an order requiring Bresnan Communications to turn over the requested information and a motion to seal.  The district court subsequently denied both motions.  There has been no activity on the docket since mid-February 2009.