In September 2000, Ellen Batzel, a California attorney, sued Robert Smith, Ton Cremers, the Netherlands Museums Association ("NMA"), and Mosler, Inc. for defamation after Cremers published on an international email list an email, written by Smith, in which Smith accused Batzel of owning art stolen by the Nazis and being a descendant of Heinrich Himmler. Batzel filed identical lawsuits in both California federal court and North Carolina federal court.

In the summer of 1999, Smith contacted Cremers, who operated the Museum Security Network ("MSN") website, to notify him about his suspicions regarding Batzel, for whom Smith worked as a handyman at the time.  Smith apparently intended the email to be a private communication, and was unaware of the MSN mailing list that Cremers edited and published.  Cremers posted Smith's email to the MSN list, which is distributed via email and also posted on the MSN site, without notifying Smith that he was doing so.

Batzel became aware of the MSN list posting about her and contacted Cremers within a few months. Cremers in turn contacted Smith for clarification about his statements.  Smith affirmed his statements, but told Cremers that he would never have sent Cremers the email had he known it would appear on the MSN list. Batzel denied Smith's accusations, and in turn accused Smith of trying to defame her because she refused to help him find contacts regarding a screenplay he wrote.

Batzel filed lawsuits in both California and North Carolina in September 2000.  Smith and Mosler, Inc., a sponsor of the MSN list, both filed an answer in California, and Batzel dropped them from the North Carolina lawsuit.  The NMA did not file an answer in either suit, and the California court granted default judgment against it. 

Unaware of the North Carolina lawsuit, Cremers filed an answer in California and moved to dismiss Batzel's case under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).  In July 2001, the district court denied Cremer's motion, ruling that Batzel had shown sufficient probability of prevailing on her claims to survive an anti-SLAPP motion. The court dismissed Batzel's claims against Mosler, Inc., finding that sponsorship of the MSN list was not sufficient to impose liability.

Batzel and Cremers both appealed.  In June 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Mosler dismissal and vacated the district court's ruling on Cremers' anti-SLAPP motion.  While the court of appeals agreed that Batzel had shown a likelihood of prevailing in her defamation claim, it ruled that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230") controlled the case.  The court held that, if Cremers had reasonably believed that Smith provided the email to be published on the MSN list, then CDA 230 protected him from defamation liability for publishing the content of Smith's email. Because the facts were not clear from the record, the court remanded the case to district court to determine whether Cremers had a reasonable belief that Smith had provided his email for publication.

Batzel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Court denied her petition. Meanwhile, Cremers became aware of Batzel's lawsuit in North Carolina, for which he had never been served. The North Carolina court dismissed Batzel's lawsuit with prejudice in April 2001 for failure to prosecute. Cremers moved for summary judgment in California in November 2004, arguing that the doctrine of res judicata barred Batzel from suing Cremers in the California action. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case against Cremers in March 2005.

It is unclear what happened regarding Batzel's claims against Smith.  According to the California district court's docket, all motions and orders mailed to Smith from 2004 on were returned for failure of delivery.

On December 2, 2007, Ed and Brenda Hammitt filed a lawsuit against Teresa Watson, the operator of RomeNewsByWatson.com, a news website that purports to "document . . . items of public corruption," claiming defamation and libel for publishing comments made by an anonymous user of the website.

The complaint alleges that an anonymous user of RomeNewsByWatson.com, using the pseudonym "dirtyboy," accused the plaintiffs of being involved in criminal activity in a comment to an article named "Dixie Mafia Chapter 5: How to Marginalize an Opponent in Three Easy Steps" that mentioned Bobby Lee Cook, one of the three attorneys representing the Hammitts. The original comment has been removed from the website, but can be found in Exhibit A of the complaint.

On December 18th, 2007, a staff reporter for RomeNewsByWatson.com reported that the case was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. The report also stated that the plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit

without serving the Georgia Code Required 7-Day Demand Letter, asking for a retraction. They also neglected to file a Special Affidavit required by federal and state law on issues of Free Speech and Public Participation.

Anti-SLAPP, (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation), laws require that affidavits be signed by both the Plaintiffs as well as their lawyers, swearing that the litigation they are filing does not impede or attempt to stifle or suppress Free Speech or other first Amendment Rights. The affidavits have to be filed either contemporaneously with the filing of the suit, or an amendment must be filed to the original suit within the first 10 days after filing of the suit.

Former House Representative Richard Ottinger and his wife, June Ottinger, filed a John Doe lawsuit in New York state court and served a subpoena on The Journal News, a daily newspaper distributed in New York and Southern Connecticut that operates LoHud.com, a website providing an online version of the newspaper as well as community forums. The subpoena sought identifying information for three posters to the site's Mamaroneck community forum going by the psuedonyms "SAVE10543," "hadenough," and "aoxomoxoa." According to court documents, the three posters falsely accused the Ottingers of bribing a local official and presenting a fraudulent deed in connection with a neighborhood dispute over their construction of a house in the Village of Mamaroneck, New York. 

In March 2008, the Journal News moved to quash the subpoena. In a May 28, 2008 hearing on the motion, the court converted the John Doe lawsuit into a "special proceeding" for pre-action discovery against the Journal News. In the same hearing, the court adopted the standard for protecting the First Amendment right to anonymous speech set forth in Dendrite v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001), and required the Ottingers to post notice on two LoHud forums notifying the pseudonymous posters of the pending discovery request and asking them to appear through counsel or otherwise on June 25, 2008.

At the June 25 hearing, none of the pseudonymous posters appeared through counsel or otherwise. In a subsequent opinion and order, the court held that the Ottingers had satisfied the requirements of the Dendrite standard and ordered the Journal News to turn over the requested information within five days. More specifically, the court found that the Ottingers had identified and set forth the alleged defamatory statements with sufficient precision, provided adequate notice via the LoHud forums, and made a sufficient preliminary factual showing on the merits of their defamation case. Relying on Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), the court held that the Ottingers were not required to make a factual showing on the element of "actual malice" because that information could not reasonably be expected to be in their possession at such an early stage in the proceedings, given the anonymity of the defendants. 

On June 18, 2008, a lawyer for Mynutritionstore.com, a provider of "science based Nutraceuticals" and "turnkey Internet business opportunit[ies]," sent an email to Julia Forte in which he threatened to sue her over user comments on the website she runs, 800notes.com, that hosts a forum for the discussion of telemarketers.

According to an email and follow up demand letter from its counsel, Mynutritionstore.com asserted that comments on the site defamed the company and its owners and stated "all we want are the references to mynutritionstore.com, Jim Stepanian, Nicole Stepanian and their number (888) 712-3888 filtered from your site."

After Forte responded that she was immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), which protects interactive website operators from liability for the comments of their users, Mynutritionstore.com responded that unless Forte removed the user comments, it would seek injunctive relief and sue her "as a necessary party to the complaint. Unfortunately, you will likely need an attorney and will likely have to pay to defend yourself – if it comes to that."

In a response letter to Mynutritionstore.com's lawyer Thomas Georgianna, Paul Alan Levy, who represents Forte, warned that bringing her into the suit for the purpose of running up her costs, even though she cannot be held liable, would constitute an abuse of process and likely result in an award of fees under the California anti-SLAPP statute.

Internet Solutions Corporation, a company that runs a number of employment recruiting and Internet advertising businesses, and Ayman Difrawi (a.k.a. Alec Difrawi), the President and Director of Internet Solutions, sued Archie Garga-Richardson, the founder and operator of ScamFraudAlert.com, for defamation and other claims in federal district court in Florida. ScamFraudAlert.com is a forum site that focuses on alleged Internet scams, security threats, and fraudulent practices. The complaint alleges that Garga-Richardson published false and defamatory statements regarding Difrawi and Internet Solutions.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Garga-Richardson published statements falsely claiming that they engage in "phishing, identity theft and perpetration of fraudulent employment scams." Cmplt. ¶¶ 13, 14. It also alleges that he published statements falsely claiming that they are "thugs" and "crooks, criminals, [and] scumbags targeting the unemploy [sic], elderly, students, stay-at-home moms, retirees and the innocent." Cmplt. ¶ 15. Difrawi and Internet Solutions seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief. It is not entirely clear from a perusal of ScamFraudAlert.com, but some of the complained of statements may have been posted by third-party users of the site. 

Update:

6/18/2008 - Garga-Richardson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.

7/8/2008 - Difrawi and Internet Solutions filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with the federal court in Florida.

7/9/2008 - The Florida court dismissed the case without prejudice.

7/10/2008 - Internet Solutions filed a complaint against Garga-Richardson in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging defamation, interference with business relationships, trade libel, and unfair competition under California law.

On May 29, 2008, counsel for Internet Solutions Corporation and Alec Difrawi sent a cease-and-desist letter and email to Archie Garga-Richardson, the founder of ScamFraudAlert.com, a forum site that focuses on alleged Internet scams, security threats, and fraudulent practices. (The letter also went to Domain Privacy Group, Inc., a company that apparently helped Garga-Richardson register the site's domain name anonymously.) The letter asserted that "representatives, agents, administrators, moderators and members" of ScamFraudAlert.com had posted "defamatory, libelous, disparaging, false, misleading and highly injurious and detrimental statements" on the site. Specifically, it claimed that posters on the website falsely stated that Internet Solutions, its affiliates, and Difrawi engaged in various business improprieties (see the letter for details).

The letter demanded that Garga-Richardson remove all defamatory statements about Internet Solutions and Defrawi from the website and refrain from posting "any statements on any website, including but not limited to www.scamfraudalert.com, regarding my clients in the future." It gave Garga-Richardson until June 4 to provide written confirmation that he would comply with these demands. Garga-Richardson has indicated to the CMLP that he will not remove the disputed content and intends to "fight this out in the courts." He is currently looking for legal assistance.

Difrawi and Internet Solutions filed a lawsuit against Garga-Richardson in the federal district court in Florida on June 6, 2008. See our database entry, Difrawi v. Garga-Richardson (Lawsuit), for details.  

Oliver "Buck" Revell, former associate deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, filed a defamation lawsuit against medical professor Hart G.W. Lidov and Columbia University after Lidov wrote and posted an article critizing Revell on the Columbia Journalism Review's online bulletin board. According to court documents, the article accused Revell of participating in a conspiracy that allegedly resulted in the tragic bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Revell's suit in Texas federal district court included claims against Lidov, Columbia's Board of Trustees, and the Columbia School of Journalism for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to commit defamation and infliction of emotion distress. His complaint also contained negligence and gross negligence claims against Columbia for publishing the article without making an adequate determination of its truth or falsity.

Both Lidov, a Harvard Medical School professor and resident of Masschusetts, and Columbia, a New York entity, filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Revell argued in his complaint that the Texas court had specific jurisdiction over Revell and Columbia because they had engaged in purposeful conduct that caused damage in Texas. Specifically, he argued that the defendants' posting of the article was sufficient to confer jurisdiction because the online bulletin board could be accessed in Texas. Revell argued further that Columbia had sufficient commercial contacts with Texas to warrant general jurisdiction.

The district court granted the motions to dismiss. The court analyzed the online contacts under the "sliding scale" test developed in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). Applying the test, the court determined that the bulletin board was a "passive" website and thus did not constitute sufficient contact with Texas to confer jurisdiction. The court also determined that the defendants' other contacts with Texas were minimal and thus also insufficient to warrant jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Fifth Circuit closely followed the reasoning of the district court, though it also devoted significant attention to rebutting Revell's specific jurisdiction claims under the "effects" test established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The court determined that Lidov's article was not "expressly aimed" at Texas and thus could not satisfy the "effects" test.

Salisbury, Maryland Police Chief Allan Webster filed a lawsuit against local blogger Joe Albero, who operates the Salisbury News blog, wich covers matters of local interest in Salisbury and Wicomico County. Albero, who often takes local politicians to task, criticized and posted information about Webster on the blog. Although the details are not entirely clear, the dispute seems to have revolved, at least in part, around Albero's posting of a third-party, anonymous letter addressed to Salisbury City Council Members. Webster's complaint included claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.

In his pre-trial memorandum, Albero argued that he should not be compelled to disclose his source for the letter. He argued that the source of the letter was not relevant to the case, that Maryland's shield law protected him from having to identify his source, and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized him from liability for posting the letter.

In an April 9, 2008 ruling, District Court Judge Gerald Purnell ruled that Albero could not take advantage of the Maryland shield law, which applies to individuals who are "employed" by the "news media" (which is defined as including any "electronic means of disseminating news and information to the public"). Although we have not been able to obtain a copy or transcript of the ruling, one report indicates that the court denied Albero the protection of the shield law because he does not earn revenue from the Salisbury News. In any event, the court decided that Albero would not be required to reveal the identity of his source, relying on either the relevance or the CDA 230 argument (exactly which is not clear).

On July 30, hours before the trial was set to begin, the parties announced they had settled the dispute on "non-monetary terms." The parties offered no further comment regarding the settlement.

USMLEWORLD, LLC, a company providing online courses to prepare for the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam, sent a cease-and-decease letter to Digg complaining that users were using, posting, and distributing its copyrighted material through Digg links. USMLEWORLD demanded that Digg remove the allegedly infringing material and terminate the account of users who distributed it.

The relevant URL now contains a notice -- "This item has been removed pursuant to a demand received by Digg" -- suggesting that the matter has been resolved.

In January 2008, literary agent Barbara Bauer and her company Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. filed a lawsuit in New Jersey State court against twenty-two defendants, including the Wikimedia Foundation. The complaint includes claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and conspiracy. According to court documents, the dispute revolves around statements made on a large number of websites and blogs describing Bauer as being among the "20 Worst Literary Agents" and claiming that she has "no . . . significant track record of sales to commercial (advance paying) publishers." The complaint also alleges that various defendants posted altered photographs of Bauer on the Internet and created YouTube videos, including "Crouching Snark, Hidden Draggon" and "Miss Snark's Happy Hooker Crapstravaganza," that allegedly defamed and belittle her.

With regard to Wikimedia, the complaint alleges that Wikipedia published false statements indicating that Bauer was "The Dumbest of the Twenty Worst" literary agents and that she has "no documented sales at all." It further alleges that Bauer informed Wikimedia about the allegedly false statements, and that the foundation "has refused to remove the statements from Wikipedia." Finally, it alleges that Wikimedia conspired with the other defendants to defame and interfere with her prospective economic advantage, without providing any details.

On May 1, 2008, Wikimedia moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), the federal law that shields providers and users of "interactive computer service[s]" from liability for defamation and other torts for publishing the statements of third parties, bars Bauer's claims as a matter of law. Wikimedia's memorandum in support of its motion also argued that, even if CDA 230 did not bar Bauer's claim, the underlying statements are protected opinion under the New Jersey Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 20, 2008, WritersNewsWeekly.com wrote that the court will hear Wikimedia's motion to be dismissed from the lawsuit on June 6, 2008.

Update:

7/1/08 - Court dismissed the case against Wikimedia Foundation, ruling that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred liability for publishing the statements of others. The court left open the possibility that Bauer could amend her complaint to state a claim against Wikimedia.