Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist from Foster City, CA sued Tai Jing and Jia Ma, the parents of a boy she treated, after they allegedly posted a negative review about her on Yelp!, a consumer review website.  Wong also named Yelp! Inc. as a defendant. The complaint contained three causes of action: first, a claim of libel against all three defendants; second, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Ma; and third, a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Yelp!  Wong's attorney subsequently told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would dismiss the claims against Yelp because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars recovery against the website for publishing third-party content.

Update:

01/21/2009 - Tai Jing, Jia Ma, and Yelp! Inc. filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

02/03/2009 - Wong voluntarily dismissed the claims against Yelp!

03/18/2009 - The court denied Tai Jing and Jia Ma's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law.

7/15/2009 -  Defendants filed their opening brief in the Sixth Appellate District.  Plaintiff responded on 9/14/2009 and Defendants filed their reply on 10/9/2009. 

11/9/2010 - The Sixth Appellate District issued a ruling dismissing all claims against Jia Ma and Yelp!, and both emotional distress claims against Tai Jing, under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.  The Court left intact the claim against Jing for libel.

05/12/2011 - On remand, the Superior Court awarded Jia Ma, Tai Jing, and Yelp! a total of $80,741.15 in legal fees for the claims dismissed under California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Yvonne Wong's libel claim against Tai Jing (as sole author of the Yelp! review) remains pending. 

IGIA, Inc., a company that sells vacuum cleaners and other houseware products, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Ed Magedson in federal court in New York over negative user reports published on the Ripoff Report, a consumer complaint website.  IGIA claimed that the reports constitued trade libel and unfair competition, and that Xcentric and Magedson engaged in extortion by operating the "Corporate Advocacy Program" (CAPS), in which companies accused of bad practices on the website can pay to have Xcentric verify published complaints and resolve disputes with consumers. 

IGIA filed suit after numerous negative reports about it appeared on the Ripoff Report website.  The complaint alleged that Xcentric and Magedson solicited negative reports and created fictional complaints and defamatory headings and titles, thereby losing the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).  It also claimed that operation of the CAPS program constituted extortion and wire fraud and violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Xcentric and Magedson failed to answer the complaint.  As a result, the court entered a default judgment in favor of IGIA.  Xcentric then moved to vacate the default judgment.  Subsequently, IGIA voluntarily dismissed the action.  It is not clear from the record whether this voluntary dismissal was the result of a settlement between the parties.

After voluntarily dismissing a nearly identical lawsuit in federal court in Florida, Internet Solutions filed a complaint against Archie Garga-Richardson in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging defamation, interference with business relationships, trade libel, and unfair competition under California law. Garga-Richardson moved to strike the complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

Update:

11/24/08 - The court issued a tentative ruling granting Garga-Richardson's motion to strike the complaint.

12/4/08 - Case dismissed.

1/2/09 - Internet Solutions filed a notice of appeal.

2/11/09 - Internet Solutions abandoned its appeal.

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie subpoenaed Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") seeking the identity of three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI.  The subpoena issued in connection with a defamation lawsuit Brodie filed against INI and John Doe defendants in Maryland state court. 

According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway.  Appellant's Brief, at 4-6.  INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties.  At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here."  INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech.  The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted.  On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters.  The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements. 

INI then requested the specific allegations of defamation related to the food-service establishment, and Brodie's counsel responded with a letter and a copy of the relevant forum threads indicating that the posters responsible for the statements about the Dunkin' Donuts were "RockyRacoon MD" and "Suze," who were not named as defendants in the complaint.  Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here," who had been protected by the court's earlier decision on reconsideration because their statements only related to the burning of the house.  INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  

INI appealed.  The Maryland Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case on December 8, 2008.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

In April 2007, building contractor RSA Enterprises, Inc. and its owner Raffi Arslanian sued Ripoff Report for defamation and trade libel over a negative report submitted to the consumer complaint website by a dissatisfied customer. In addition, RSA sued Google for disseminating the allegedly defamatory content as part of its search results. In August 2007, RSA filed a  a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, likely because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized both Ripoff Report and Google for the alleged misconduct. 

The disputed report remains online, but it is now paired with a rebuttal from Raffi Arslanian.      

In July 2007, Manchanda Law Offices, PLLC and attorney Rahul Manchanda (collectively "Manchanda") sued Xcentric Ventures over negative "rip-off reports" about the firm published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.  According to the complaint, user statements appearing on the website falsely accused Manchanda of engaging in unethical billing practices and providing poor legal services. Cmplt.¶¶ 11-14. The complaint included claims for defamation and false light, and sought damages, a declaration that the disputed statements were false, and an injunction against future defamatory statements.

On October 10, 2007, Manchanda filed an amended complaint that named former client Nitina Rana as one of the Ripoff Report posters.  The amended complaint shifted the defamation claim to Rana alone and also brought against her a breach of contract claim and a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. The amended complaint also included claims against Xcentric Ventures and founder Edward Magedson for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and tortious interference with contract.

In November, 2007, four months after Manchanda filed the lawsuit, the firm still had not served the defendants with any pleadings. On November 26, 2007, Manchanda filed a motion to withdraw the lawsuit without specifying a reason.  The court granted the order without prejudice.

Manchanda apparently has not refiled the case.

In September 2004, management consulting firm George S. May International Company (GSMIC) filed a  lawsuit against Ripoff Report, a consumer review website.  GSMIC's complaint included claims for defamation, "false descriptions and representations" in violation of the Lanham Act, trade libel, and deceptive trade practices.  It alleged that the site and operator Ed Magedson published false and misleading user comments accusing the company of "illegal and immoral activities." Cmplt.¶¶ 11-12. 

A federal district court in Illinois granted GSMIC's motion for a temporary restraining order.  The TRO prohibited Xcentric from "making, hosting or transmitting false or deceptively misleading, descriptions, statements or representations concerning George S. May, its business, owner, officers, employees and/or agents." GSMIC also requested a preliminary injunction, but the parties ultimately agreed to extend the TRO and the court never ruled on it.  In October 2008, GSMIC successfully moved the court for a finding of contempt of court for violating the TRO, and Xcentric subsequently removed eight postings that the court found violated the TRO.

Before resolution of a  complex series of motions, including one for partial summary judgment arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) protected Xcentric and Magedson from liability, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms. 

The family of a 15-year-old girl who comitted suicide is suing MySpace, alleging that the site was negligent in its safety practices. The girl apparently had committed suicide after a sexual relationship with a 27-year-old man she had met on MySpace. The family filed suit against MySpace in state court in Texas in December 2007, also naming as a defendant Kiley Ryan Bowers, the man who allegedly had a relationship with the deceased.

Bowers removed the case to federal district court in Texas, but the court remanded the case to state court. The CMLP has not been able to determine what has transpired since the case returned to state court in late April 2008.

GW Equity, LLC, a mergers and acquisition firm that acts as a consultant to middle-market business owners who seek to sell or merge their businesses, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in Texas federal court for defamation and other torts over reports published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.

In its complaint, GW Equity alleged that Ripoff Report published false and defamatory reports submitted by users without verifying their accuracy. In an effort to circumvent the immunity for website operators provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), GW Equity further alleged that Xcentric and Magedson created, developed, and published defamatory titles, headings, and metatags for these reports concerning GW Equity. It also claimed that Ripoff Report generated defamatory content by providing users with drop-down boxes containing defamatory tags, such as "corrupt companies," which were applied by users to reports about GW Equity.

After completing discovery, Xcentric and Magedson moved for summary judgment. In October 2008, a federal magistrate judge issued his report on the motion, recommending that the district court grant Xcentric and Magedson's motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge found that Xcentric and Magedson were entitled to the protection of CDA 230 because GW Equity had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact concerning their development or creation of defamatory content. The court indicated that providing drop-down boxes with "a broad choice of categories from which a user must make a selection in order to submit a report [was] not sufficient" to deprive the defendants of immunity, especially because they "did not solely provide users with a selection of categories that were negative and/or defamatory in nature." Slip op. at 7, 10.

The magistrate judge also found that there was no competent evidence that any Ripoff Report employee ever wrote or significantly edited report titles and headings, or changed the category tag on a user report. See id. at 9-10. The magistrate relied in part on a report produced by Xcentric showing IP addresses and locations connected with the reports and rebuttals about GW Equity. This report showed the IP addresses of Ripoff Report servers and machines used by Ripoff Report staff, and noneof those IP addresses matched up with the IPs of a report or a rebuttal about GW Equity. See id. at 9.

Finally, the magistrate rejected GW Equity's argument that Ripoff Report's "Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Satisfaction Program" took the website outside of CDA 230. According to GW Equity, under this program Ripoff Report will, for a fee, investigate "rip-off" reports targeting member companies and post prominent rebuttals to those reports. The court indicated that "it is not a bar to immunity for an Internet provider to refuse to remove defamatory material created by a third party, or to otherwise use it to their advantage, even though the Internet provider’s conduct may be considered reprehensible and offensive." Id. at 12.

GW Equity has filed objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, and the district court had not ruled on those objections as of November 14, 2008.

Update:

01/09/2009 - The district court affirmed the magistrate's report and recommendation and granted Xcentric and Magedson's motion for summary judgment.

Cambridge Who's Who Publishing, Inc. ("Cambridge") sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in federal court in New York over user reports published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. Xcentric also allegedly operates a "Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Consumer Statisfaction Program" (CAPS), in which companies accused of bad practices on the website can pay to have Xcentric verify published complaints and resolve disputes with consumers. 

Cambridge filed suit after a number of negative reports about it appeared on the Ripoff Report website.  The complaint alleged that Xcentric operates an extortion scheme centered around the publication of defamatory consumer reports about Cambridge and other companies in an effort to extract "protection money" (in the form of the CAPS program) to portray Cambridge and others in a positive light on the website.  Cambridge claimed that this conduct constituted extortion and violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  It also claimed that Xcentric's conduct constituted defamation, tortious interference with contract and prospective economic gain, trademark infringement, and conspiracy to injure in trade, business and reputation. 

Xcentric and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Cambridge cross-moved the court for permission to take discovery on matters relating to jurisdiction.  The court denied Xcentric's motion with permission to renew it after the completion of limited discovery on the question of Xcentric's ties to New York, specifically in connection with its CAPS program. The court limited discovery to the CAPS program, indicating that publishing consumer reviews, selling books, and giving consumers advice online was not sufficient to show that Xcentric transacted business in New York.  Slip. op. at 7-8. The court refused to consider Xcentric's argument based on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, indicating that CDA 230 does not affect a court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant.  Id. at 3-4 n.1.

The parties settled the case, and Cambridge voluntarily dismissed its complaint in January 2008. The terms of the settlement are not public.