Eric Von Kuersteiner, who owns and operates several businesses in the "Pines" beach resort community on Fire Island, New York, sued blog operator Eric Schrader and several anonymous commenters for defamation in New York state court.  Schrader ran the now-defunct pavillion.blog, named after a club owned by Von Kuersteiner.  The blog served as "an Internet discussion board/blog on which participants [could] post comments about social life in the Fire Island Pines community."

According to the court's opinion dismissing the case, anonymous and pseudonymous commenters to the blog made statements critical of Von Kuersteiner and his businesses, accusing him of watering down drinks at his bars, having a stinky septic system, being unsuccessful and losing money, treating employees badly, and not having a women's restroom, among other things.

After filing suit, Von Kuersteiner moved the court for permission to take the deposition of Blog.com, Schrader's blog hosting service, to learn the names, addresses, and IP addresses of the authors of the objectionable comments. Schrader objected to this request and moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the posts were not defamatory, and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) protected him from liability for the statements of third parties. 

In a decision on October 14, 2008, the court denied Von Kuersteiner's request for permission to take Blog.com's deposition and dismissed the case in its entirety.  The court first dismissed the case against Schrader, holding that he "exercised a publisher's traditional editorial function and is entitled to immunity under the CDA."  The court then denied Von Kuersteiner's discovery request and dismissed the case against the anonymous defendants, holding that the 35 statements Von Kuersteiner complained about were constitutionally protected statements of opinion when considered in context.

Roy Holmgren sued the Murrietta Opinion and About Murrieta blogs, as well anonymous operators and/or commenters to these blogs, for defamation in California state court in March 2008. The complaint alleged that the defendants published false statements about Holmgren on the two blogs, including statements that he was a stalker, that he was married to an illegal alien, and that he committed crimes that destroyed property. Cmplt. ¶ 9.

The case did not move forward for several months because Holmgren did not know the identities of the blog operators and commenters. Blogspot, the hosting service for the two blogs, refused to cooperate with Holmgren's request for identifying information.

After some investigation, Holmgren amended the complaint in Sepember 2008, naming Jeffrey Kleiner as the operator of the Murrieta Opinion blog. According to an affidavit, Holmgren mailed the amended complaint to Kleiner, but he has not served or identified any other defendants.

Update:

12/15/2008 - Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Holmgren requiring him to show why sanctions of $150.00 on the 1st Amended Complaint should not be ordered for failure to file proof of service of summons.

Case is ongoing: A case management hearing is scheduled for 8/07/2009.

According to a comment posted below, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after being unable to locate the defendant.

A Pocono Country Place Property Owners Association and several of its members have sued Robert Sciarrone, the operator of The Pocono SpeakEasy, a forum "[d]edicated for our First Amendment Right to speak out" on issues related to the Pocono region of Pennsylvania. According to the Pocono Record, "Sciarrone often has criticized the board openly in the past for what he views as mismanagement and failure to address quality-of-life concerns in the APCP community."

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that statements on Sciarrone's site are "false, defamatory and libelous." The complaint does not identify the specific statements plaintiffs assert are defamatory.

In July 2008, Sciarrone filed preliminary objections to the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately identify the "exact false and defamatory statements that have caused [them] harm."

On September 15, 2008, the court issued an order sustaining Sciarrone's objections and granting the plaintiffs 20 days to file a more specific amended complaint. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction. Sciarrone filed objections to these pleadings in late September.

Update:

11/2008 - Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and Sciarrone filed objections to it.

12/4/2008 - Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

12/29/2008 - Sciarrone removed the case to federal court (3:08-cv-2312) - M.D. Pa.

01/22/2009 - Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court.

03/25/2009 - According to Sciarrone, the case was remanded to state court.

William Murawski, a frequent political candidate, sued Ron Gunzburger, who runs Politics1.com, for defamation and violating his First Amendment rights. Murawski alleged that Gunzburger violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to list his name as a candidatefor New York governor on Politics1.com. He also alleged that Gunzburger defamed him when he later added Murawski's name to the website by placing it close enough to a Communist Party candidate that search engine results for his name pulled up a snippet of text showing Murawski's name immediately after the words "Communist Political Organizer."

Murawski brought other claims against several additional defendants, including the New York State Board of Elections, several current and former New York government officials, Yahoo!, and IAC/Interactive Corp. (which runs Ask.com).

Gunzburger moved to dismiss the claims against him and for sanctions against Murawski.  The court granted his motion to dismiss, ruling that, because Gunzburger was not a government actor, Murawski could not bring a claim against him for violation of his First Amendment rights. The court rejected the defamation claim as well, ruling that Gunzburger did not identify Murawski as a communist on his website and that the displayed search engine results were not attributable to Gunzburger.

The court denied Gunzburger's motion for sanctions, however, because Murawski was representing himself pro se and may not have been aware of the possibility of sanctions when he wrote his original complaint.

The court also dismissed Murawski's claim against IAC/Interactive for reproducing Gunzburger's list and failing to remove Politics1.com from its directory, relying on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In addition, the court dismissed the claims against Yahoo! and several of the government officials.  The case is still pending against the New York State Board of Elections, but the remaining claims do not relate to online speech in any way. 

Pet shop owner Robert Novak, operator of Petswarehouse.com, sued Active Window Productions ("AWP"), host of the Aquatic Plants Digest ("APD"), a forum and email list for aquatic plant gardeners and hobbyists, and several individuals who criticized Pets Warehouse.  Novak added further claims against the individuals after they organized to protest Novak's lawsuit.  Novak sued in New York federal court on claims of cybersquatting, defamation, trademark dilution and infringement, trade libel, tortious interference with business, false light, unfair competition, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to court documents, Dan Resler, a computer scientist, posted a message in May 2001 that warned: "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't." He went on to detail his gripes about the company's customer service, based on what he said was a delayed shipment of plants he'd ordered.  Resler later followed up with this post amending his previous warning: "to clarify: Pet Warehouse OK, Pets Warehouse NOT." 

Other members of the list soon added their own complaints, including the following alleged statements recounted in the plaintiff's complaint:

• [a]s a source for purchasing plants, they do not have a good reputation (Defendant Jared Weinberger - May 21, 2001)
• But you don’t have to take my word as the last word on their horrible service. Feeling lucky? Go ahead - try them out yourselves. After all, it’s only your time and money, right? (Defendant Dan Resler - May 18, 2001)
• They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it’s more like 20%. Or less. If at all. (Defendant Thomas Barr - May 17, 2001)
• Given the continual flow of negative comments about PetSwarehouse that I’ve read for nearly two years on this list, I’ve decided to add a warning (and figure this is better than simply removing them. (Defendant Weinberger - May 18, 2001)
• Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you’ll be swearing! (May 22, 2001)
• I believe they call that deceptive advertising. Or bait-and-switch. Take your pick. (Defendant Sean Carney - May 16, 2001)

After seeing the criticism, Novak filed suit against the posters for libel and defamation seeking damages of $1 million, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking damages of $15 million.

The defendants began to organize against the lawsuit via online forums and the APD list, and sought donations to their legal defense fund.  In organizing and promoting their legal defense, the defendants referenced Pets Warehouse.  In response, Novak brought additional claims against the defendants, including trademark violations and business torts. 

As a result, several defendants settled with Novak in December 2001 and agreed to remove any posts or messages "concerning or referring to" Novak. According to the "stipulation of settlement" posted on the defendants' information site, Dan Resler also agreed to pay $4,150.

In 2007, Novak amended his complaint against AWP, AWP's editor Mark Rosenstein, and AWP poster Robert Hudson. AWP and  Mark Rosenstein answered, denying Novak's claims and invoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as granting them immunity from any defamation or infringement stemming from APD posters' comments. They also brought counterclaims against Novak for violations of New York Civil Rights Law.

Update:

8/7/2008 - Court ordered that a status conference will be held in Courtroom 820 of the Federal Courthouse in Central Islip on September 5, 2008 at 11:30 a.m 

9/19/2008 - Status conference held. Court ordered a pretrial conference for May 29, 2009.

Roslyn Johnson, former Deputy Director of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, sued Jonetta Rose Barras, Talk Media Communications, government watchdog website DCWatch, two DCWatch executives, and The District of Columbia, after DC Watch published in its electronic newsletter and on its website articles submitted by Barras, a local political reporter. Barras's articles, which were posted also on her personal website JR Barras.com, looked at alleged cronymism in the hiring practices of the Department and stated that Johnson had inflated her resume in order to secure her position. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 70-75 . Johnson filed her claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with contract, negligence, and violations of the District of Columbia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in D.C. Superior Court.

DCWatch and its two executives, Dorothy Brizill and Gary Imhoff, moved to dismiss Johnson's claims against them, arguing that DCWatch could not be found liable for Barras's article because DCWatch was protected from liability for publishing third-party content under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230). They also argued that they could only be held liable if Barras' accusations were not substantially true and cited a report by the D.C. Inspector General that found Johnson had inflated her resume.

In addition, Barras moved for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that her accusations were substantially true, and the District of Columbia moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the D.C. FOIA did not create a claim on which Johnson could sue.

The court denied DCWatch's motion initially and granted Johnson limited discovery to ascertain whether Barras was an agent of DCWatch, which would allow Johnson to overcome DCWatch's CDA 230 immunity. The court also denied Barras's and the District's motions, ruling that it would let Johnson investigate her claims in discovery.

Johnson failed to uncover evidence of a relationship between DCWatch and Barras that would sustain her claims against the DCWatch defendants, and she voluntarily withdrew her claims against them in February 2008.

Update:

01/29/09 - Case dismissed with prejudice as to Barras and Talk Media Communications; remaining claims settled.