George Gillespie of Ohio filed suit on September 16, 2005 against two chat room users who allegedly humiliated him in AOL chat discussions.  The defendants, Bob Charpentier and Mike Marlowe, lived in Oregon and Alabama respectively at the time the suit was filed. Gillespie also sued AOL for allowing the alleged harassment to occur.

According to Law.com, Gillespie alleged that the chat room participants "acted in an outrageous manner, which they knew or should have known would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff . . .  The Defendants' conduct was so extreme and contemptible as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency."  Gillespie also alleged that Charpentier and Marlowe intruded into his "private affairs" and claimed that Marlowe  drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph his home (for posting on the web) and/or to file a change of address form with the local post office in order to disrupt his mail.  Marlowe denied traveling to Ohio.

On January 30, 2006, AOL moved to dismiss the suit or stay it for improper venue. Judge Christopher J. Collier dismissed the suit against AOL on February 14, 2006, but the grounds for dismissal are unclear. Charpentier, acting pro se, filed a response and sought to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie.  Following an oral hearing, the court dismissed Charpentier from the suit.  The case docket indicates that the court entered a default judgment against Mike Marlowe on April 28, 2006 in the amount of $221.80.

On March 4, 2009, Randall Palazzo, a custom home builder in Oregon, sued the Willamette Week, a local newspapaper that also publishes a website, for defamation.  According to OregonLive, several editors and staffers, including Ian Gillingham, the paper's web editor, were also named as defendants. 

The lawsuit concerns a March 12, 2008 story in the paper's "Rogue of the Week" column, which reported neighborhood complaints about rude and aggressive behavior by Palazzo and his employees.  The Willamette Week posted a correction to the original article and let Palazzo Custom Homes publish a lengthy response after the lawsuit was filed, according to Palazzo's attorney (see comment below).

OregonLive reports that the complaint seeks to hold the Willamette Week liable for publishing defamatory user comments, despite the obstacle to such a claim posed by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

On February 13, 2009, Charles Novins, a New Jersey attorney, filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and his law firm, alleging that nine individuals posted defamatory statements about him "in a world-wide forum." Novins attached to his complaint a copy of a post made to the Usenet newsgroup alt.culture.alaska, claiming that Novins employed drug addicts at his firm. Novins alleged that his firm's revenue "declined demonstrably during this period after the publication on February 13, 2008," and he is seeking "compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest, and costs of the suit."

The complaint also names Google, Inc., TSB Bearings, Inc., Databasix, Oakland Community College, and John and Jane Roes (1-100), as defendants, but no cause of action or claim is made in the complaint against any of these defendants.  According to some Usenet posts (here and here), TSB Bearings, Inc and Oakland Community College are employers of defendants Kevin A. Cannon and Vincent Lamb, respectively.  Novins' complaint also "demands judgment" against defendands ABC Corporation 1-10, XYZ Partnership 1-10, and John and Jane Doe 1-100, who the complaint states are "persons, identities unknown, who acted, assisted, and/or participated in the assault on the plaintiff."

Prior to the lawsuit, Novins sent a letter to defendant Cannon stating his intention to file a lawsuit against him, his employer, and unnamed others.  See CMLP's related database entry, Novins v. Cannon (Letter), for details. 

Update:

04/15/09 - Kevin Cannon filed an answer and cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against his co-defendants.

04/27/09 - Carl Osterwald filed an answer, cross-claims for contribution and indemnification against his co-defendants, and a counterclaim against Novins.

09/25/09 - The court granted Cannon and Osterwald's motion to dismiss without prejudice for failing to answer interrogatories. 

10/20/09 - The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

04/22/10 -  Novins voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to Kevin Michael Fries and Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries.

04/27/10 -  The court granted the motion of defendants Lamb and Osterwald for judgment on the pleadings, relying on Section 230. The court ordered that defendants Kelso, Young, Mather, Monaghan, Google Inc., TSB Bearings, Databasix, Oakland Community College, Lamb, and Osterwald are terminated as parties in the action, leaving only Cannon.

Thomas Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, filed a lawsuit against online classified site Craigslist, alleging that the site is a "public nuisance" because its users have posted ads in the "erotic services" category that facilitate prostitution.

The civil complaint, filed by the Sheriff in his official capacity, seeks an injunction, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  According to the complaint, Craigslist creates a "public nuisance" because its "conduct in creating erotic services, developing twenty-one categories, and providing a word search function causes a significant interference with the public's health, safety, peace, and welfare." Compl. ¶ 92.

Update:

5/4/2009 - Craigslist filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

7/10/2009- Dart filed a response to Craigslist's motion for judgement on the pleadings.

Angela Victoria Woodhull sued hacker Carolyn Meinel after Meinel allegedly posted two false and defamatory statements about her on Meinel's website The Happy Hacker.  In 2003, Meinel posted on her website an email message from Woodhull entitled "Please contact me" and stating "I have a job for you."  According to the appellate court opinion in the case, Meinel then added her own commentary, stating that, when she called Woodhull, Woodhull asked her to hack into a news website that had written unflattering comments about her. 

In 2006, Meinel made a second posting, which recapped the 2003 incident and went on to state that Meinel's only recourse against Woodhull for her alleged unlawful request was "to make fun of her on this website." This posting also contained the content of an email exchange between Meinel and Michael Gimignani, a staff member at The Independent Florida Alligator, a student run newspaper at the University of Florida. Gimignani's email discussed a dispute between Woodhull and the newspaper over whether a Woodhull play contained "dancing penises and condoms."  Meinel added more of her own commentary, stating that further research revealed that Woodhull had "been on America's Funniest Home Videos" and "says she is proud to be known as Wedgie Woman."

In January 2007, Woodhull filed a defamation lawsuit against Meinel in New Mexico state court.  Meinel filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations barred Woodhull's claims, and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230") immunized her from liability for publishing Gimignani's emails.  The lower court agreed and dismissed the case.

Woodhull appealed, and a New Mexico appellate court reversed.  The appellate court held that, while New Mexico followed the single publication rule for Internet publications, a jury could find that the 2006 posting was sufficiently different from the 2003 posting to constitute a separate publication, resetting the statute of limitations.

The appellate court also held that a jury should decide whether Meinel's use of Gimignani's emails qualified for Section 230 immunity.  The court stated that Meinel meight be an original "information content provider" because she solicited the information from Gimignani for her own stated purpose of "making fun" of Woodhull, and incorporated this material into a overall posting along with her own thoughts.  The court noted, however, that a jury could view Meinel's posting as containing two distinct components -- her statements and Gimignani's statements -- and thus find Section 230 applicable to the component including the Gimignani's statements.

Russell Doty, a former candidate for local political office in Montana, subpoenaed The Billings Gazette, seeking identifying information for three anonymous individuals who posted comments to an article on the newspaper's website in 2008 using the pseudonyms "CutiePie," "Always, wondering," and "High Plains Drifter."  Doty issued the subpoena in connection with a defamation lawsuit against his former political rival, Brad Molnar, in which he alleged that Molnar made false statements in 2004 concerning Doty's qualifications to run for office. 

Doty alleged that Molnar was one of the pseudonymous posters (Molnar denied this in a deposition), and that the other posters might serve as witnesses about the harm to his reputation caused by Molnar's 2004 statements.  The Billings Gazette filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that Montanta's shield law protected it from having to disclose the commenters' IP and email addresses. 

On September 3, 2008, Judge Todd Baugh of Montana's 13th Judicial District granted the motion to quash, ruling that Montana's shield law protected the commenters' identifying information.  Montana's shield law says that a news organization or any person "connected with or employed by [a news organization] for the purpose of gathering, writing, editing, or disseminating news” may not be required to "disclose any information obtained or prepared or the source of that information . . . if the information was gathered, received, or processed in the course of [a reporter's] employment or [a news organization's] business."  Mont. Code § 26-1-902(1).  Judge Baugh agreed with the Gazette's argument that this language is broad enough to encompass data gathered when a newspaper website user posts a comment. 

In March 2008, Lawrence Sinclair sued three pseudonymous Internet users -- TubeSockTedD, mzmolly, and Owningliars -- for defamation in federal district court in the District of Columbia. 

In late 2007/early 2008, Sinclair published a YouTube video and blog claiming that he had engaged in sexual activities and done drugs with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. This sparked a vociferous response from many Internet users, who criticized Sinclair and challenged his claims about Obama. 

According to court documents, one such Internet user, "TubeSockTedD," allegedly posted a video on YouTube that stated "Larry Sinclair is Spreading Lies About Obama."  Days later, another Internet user going by "Owningliars" allegedly posted a statement on Digg.com, linking back to an unspecified video, urging readers to watch it as "proof" that Sinclair was lying, and stating that Sinclair was in a mental hospital when he claimed to have met Obama.  Later still, another Internet user going by "mzmolly" allegedly posted a comment on a forum on Democratic Underground, repeating the claim that Sinclair was a former mental patient.

After Sinclair filed suit, he subpoenaed Democratic Underground, Google, and Digg seeking identifying information about the pseudonymous defendants.  Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, representing both mzmolly and Democratic Underground, objected to the subpoena in a strongly worded letter. Sinclair then moved to compel Democratic Underground to disclose mzmolly's identity, and both mzmolly and Democratic Underground opposed the motion to compel, arguing that First Amendment protection for anonymous speech shielded mzmolly's identity from disclosure under the circumstances. 

In February 2009, the district court issued an opinion denying the motion to compel and dismissing the complaint in its entirety.  The court held that Sinclair was not permitted to compel the identification of the three pseudonymous defendants because he could not meet the heightened standard required by the First Amendment.

Specifically, the court held that Sinclair's complaint was facially invalid because it did not plead facts necessary to establish the court's subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the pseudonymous defendants.  In addition, the court ruled that Sinclair's defamation claims failed as a matter of law because he did not plead either actual malice or special damages, and because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected mzmolly and Owningliars for "simply summarizing and reporting information obtained from" a third party.

Although it quashed the subpoena and dismissed the complaint, the district court refused to award mzmolly and Democratic Underground sanctions against Sinclair because of the novel areas of law involved. 

Susan and Robert Johnson, owners of Cozy Kittens Cattery, LLC, sued consumer review site ComplaintsBoard.com, its (alleged) publishers Elizabeth Arden and Michelle Reitenger, and two ComplaintsBoard users who commented on a complaint thread about Susan Johnson and her cat breeding business. The Johnsons also sued InMotion Hosting, Inc., the hosting service for the website. The complaint alleges injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional inflication of emotional distress against all six defendants.

The complaint also includes a federal trademark infringement claim against one of the commenters, Kathleen Heineman, who allegedly violated the Johnsons' trademark rights in their "Cozy Kittens" trademark by "use of the name 'Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats'" in connection with her competing cat breeding business. (This allegation is puzzling given that Heineman's business appears to be called Boutique Kittens.)

The claims against Arden, Reitenger, ComplaintsBoard.com, and InMotion seek to hold them liable for publishing third-party content (Lowry and Heineman's comments) and refusing to remove this content upon demand by the Johnsons. These claims are likely barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it does not look like any defendant has asserted this defense so far.

The Johnsons originally filed suit in state court in Missouri in June 2008, but Heineman removed the case to federal court in October 2008. After removal, Heineman, a resident of Colorado, moved to dismiss the complaint against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion was pending as of January 15, 2009.

Before removal, the state court entered a default judgment against Melanie Lowry, who did not appear in the case. Lowry later challenged the default judgment by sending a letter to the federal district judge.

InMotion moved to dismiss the complaint in state court (grounds unknown), but did not refile the motion in federal court after removal. Based on InMotion's failure to answer or file a motion to dismiss in federal court, the Johnsons moved for entry of a default judgment against it. InMotion then appeared, arguing that the court should deny the Johnsons' motion for entry of default and hear its motion to dismiss on the merits.

Arden, Reitenger, and ComplaintsBoard.com have not appeared in the federal action. The reason for this is not clear -- they may have defaulted in the state court action, they may have settled with the Johnsons, or they may never have been served in the first place. The disputed comments no longer appear on ComplaintsBoard.com.

UPDATE:  

6/8/2009 - Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Heineman, Lowry, and InMotion Hosting 

7/10/2009 - Court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Defendants Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, ComplaintsBoard.com, and Michelle Reitenger 

8/4/2010 - 8th Circuit affirms dismissal of claims