In October 2010, Albert Ahdoot and Colocation America, a company providing computer server co-location to companies operating on the Internet, sued Archie Garga-Richardson, the founder and operator of ScamFraudAlert.com, in California. The plaintiffs claimed that Garga-Richardson committed trade libel and both intentional and negligent interference with economic advantage against the company by posting statements on his website impugning the honesty of Ahdoot and Colocation America.

Garga-Richardson moved on February 4, 2011, to strike the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16.  Garga-Richardson argued that the plantiffs' claims were really an attempt to bring a defamation lawsuit in the guise of trade libel and tortious interference claims.  Garga-Richardson further argued that the plaintiffs' conduct was a matter of public interest and his comments upon that conduct were an exercise of his right of free speech.  As the plaintiffs' claims stem from that exercise, he argued, their lawsuit was a SLAPP and should be struck.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion to strike, arguing that Garga-Richardson had filed his special motion to strike after the 60-day window for filing such a motion had closed.  The plaintiffs also argued that Garga-Richardson's motion was a de facto motion for summary judgment, and that he had not provided the statutory notice required for such a motion under California law.

On April 7, 2011, the court granted Garga-Richardson's special motion to strike.  The court wrote that while Garga-Richardson's motion was a day late, the court would exercise its discretion to consider and rule on the motion.

The lawsuit was the second filed by Colocation America against Garga-Richardson.  Details on the first case, filed in April 2009, are available here.

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."

In March 2009, Cash4Gold sued Michele Liberis, a former employee, for defamation based on a post Liberis submitted to the consumer watchdog website Complaints Board. 

As described in Cash4Gold's complaint, the posting contained numerous allegations of unsavory business practices.  One of Liberis's claims was that checks were often held for several days before being mailed, thereby narrowing the window for consumers to invoke the company's 10-day satisfaction guarantee.  (Compl. ¶13)  The claims were later featured in a post on Consumerist.com, a sister publication of Consumer Reports.

In June, Cash4Gold obtained a default judgment and injunction
against the Liberis, prohibiting her from "publishing any more confidential,proprietary information, and any defamatory information on the
internet."  In July, Cash4Gold contacted Consumerist.com and Complaints Board, demanding that they remove the posts referring to Liberis's allegations. 

When neither website complied, Cash4Gold filed a 19-page amended complaint, suing Consumerist.com and Complaints Board for defamation per se and injunctive relief based on Liberis' original post and Consumerist.com's article detailing Liberis' allegations.

Update: 

9/11/2009 - Liberis filed a motion to set aside the default judgment against her.  In the court filing, Liberis claims she responded to Cash4Gold and explicity denied all allegations.  The motion also contains Liberis' answer.

Video Professor, a computer instruction software company, filed a lawsuit against the owners of Infomercialscams.com, a website which hosts anonymous reviews of infomercial products, and several related individuals asserting claims that the owners of Infomercialscams.com used the threat of negative consumer ratings to extort the company. 

Video Professor's ten-count complaint alleged that Informercial Consumer Awareness, the corporation which runs Infomercialscams.com, used Video Professor's trademarks in its metadata, such that any web search for the company would return a listing for Informercialscams.com and potentially negative consumer reviews. Compl. ¶ 47. According to the complaint, Infomercial Consumer Awareness allegedly offered Video Professor the opportunity to "delist" negative reviews of its product and to boost its rating on the site in exchange for a yearly payment of approximately $300,000.  Compl. ¶ 67.

Video Professor argued that, through these actions, Informercial Commercial Awareness and the associated individuals violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and misused the protections of the Communications Decency Act Section 230. Video Professor also filed for a preliminary injunction against Informercial Commercial Awareness. 

On July 8, 2009, Video Professor voluntarily dismissed the case against all defendants pursuant to an undisclosed settlement agreement. The Stipulated Notice of Dismissal as to Defendants Justin Leonard and Leonard Fitness, Inc. (the "Leonard Defendants") reserved to those Defendants the right to file a motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 

On July 22, 2009, the Leonard Defendants filed the motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions, asserting that Video Professor lacked any evidentiary support for its claims against those defendants.  Specifically, the Leonard Defendants claimed that Section 230 immunized them from liability for the allegedly defamatory postings, and that Video Professor's attempts to plead around Section 230 by asserting claims for extortion were insufficient as to the Leonard Defendants because Leonard had sold the web site in May 2008, before the alleged extortion attempts occurred.

The Leonard Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and sactions is still pending.

Dr. Antonio Alvi Armani, a California hair-restoration surgeon, filed a lawsuit in Florida federal court against Media Visions, Inc., and its president, Patrick Hennessey, the operators of The Hair Tranplant Network, a hair-loss forum.  The complaint, also filed on behalf of Armani Medical, Inc., claimed that Hennessey and Media Visions posted false comments about Armani and his practice on the forum site and created the false impression that posters on the site were bona fide disgruntled patients, when if fact they were either fictitious persons or undisclosed affiliates of doctors on the site's recommended list of "pre-screened" doctors.  The complaint included claims for deceptive and unfair trade practices, defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference with contract.

The complaint further claimed that the defendants failed to comply with an alleged "industry practice" of hair-loss forums:

It is industry practice and procedure to respond to this kind of posting by having the moderator of the website send a private message to the alleged "patient" requesting they privately submit verifying information to the moderator establishing their identity as a bona fide patient of the doctor in question. If the patient is verified as real then the clinic or hospital responsible for their treatment is allowed to post a response.

Compl. ¶ 50. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing Media Visions was immune from liability for user comments under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230).  The plaintiffs then withdrew their claims for trade libel and tortious interference with contract. They also filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing that the defendants were not immune under Section 230 because the defendants themselves posted defamatory comments. 

In a December 2008 ruling, the court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unfair trade practices claim, ruling that Section 230 did not apply because the claim was not based soley on "information provided by another information content provider."  In support of this conclusion, the court noted that the plaintiffs had alleged, among other things, that Media Visions created fake website content itself, failed to adequately disclose its sponsorship relationship with rival doctors, and refused to comply with the standard industry practice of verifying the identity of posters who have been called into question.

The court granted dismissal of the defamation claim on grounds that the plaintiffs had not complied with Fla. Stat. § 770.01, part of the Florida retraction statute that required them to give written notice of the alleged defamatory statements at least five days before filing suit.

The parties stipulated to dismissal of the complaint with prejudice in February 2009, apparently due to a settlement.

On September 11, 2008, concert promoter Ally David filed a defamation suit in conjunction with Bend Studio, LLC against local musician Salim Nourallah after Salim criticized David's handling of charity funds on his blog. David had been one of a group in charge of scheduling concerts and other events with funds honoring Anju Gill, a young girl who committed suicide in 2006. The complaint also alleged that Nourallah emailed the statements in question to The Dallas Observer, D Magazine, and the Dallas Morning News. The complaint states that Nourallah removed the statements from the blog before the lawsuit was filed. The blog itself is no longer available.

According to press accounts (here, here), on the same day David and Bend Studio filed their lawsuit, the board of directors for the Anju Gill Foundation filed a suit against David and Bend over the disputed funds.

On July 14, 2008, jewelry retailer Ecommerce Innovations filed a lawsuit against anonymous Ripoff Report posters who allegedly made "false and disparaging statements of fact about the [company's] products and services." Ecommerce allleged that Does 1-5 posted the comments as agents for Does 6-10, unknown companies that are competitors of Ecommerce.

The complaint includes claims for defamation in violation of California law and "trade libel" in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), which ordinarily applies to false advertising claims.

After filing the suit, Ecommerce subpoenaed Ripoff Report in Arizona, seeking the identities of the posters.  See our related database entry, Ecommerce Innovations v. Doe (Subpoena), for details.

On March 4, 2009, Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively "Monex"), two companies in the precious metals business, filed a lawsuit suit against Jason Gilliam, Richard Gilliam, and Steven Bowman for publishing allegedly defamatory statements on the website MonexFRAUD.com and attempting to extort money from Monex.  Monex initially sued in California state court, but the Gilliams removed the case to federal court.

In its complaint, Monex claims that the Gilliams and Bowman threatened to "continue to libel Monex on their website, . . . share information with government regulators, and . . . interfere with Monex's relationships with investors and banks" unless the company paid them $15 million dollars.  According the complaint, the defendants called Monex's president a "ruthless sociopath" and the firm's sales pitch "flat-out lies," in addition to other comments.  Monex alleges that the defendants made these false statements on MonexFRAUD.com and in comments posted on other websites, including YouTube and Digg.

In addition to defamation and extortion, Monex's complaint alleges cyberpiracy, unfair competition, racketeering, interference with contract, attempted conversion, trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade secret misappropriation. The Gilliams, father and son, allegedly lost approximately $32,000 with Monex.  On March 16, Jason Gilliam filed counter claims against Monex, including racketeering and breach of fiduciary duties.

On March 24, 2009, a federal court in California granted Monex's request for a temporary restraining order against the Gilliams and Bowman, expiring on April 7, 2009. The temporary restraining order prohibits them from taking any steps to extort money from Monex by (1) threatening to publish information about Monex on any forum or share information about Monex with third parties, or (2) threatening to defame Monex or its employees.  The order also barred them from retaining, disclosing, or using any Monex trade secret or proprietary information. 

The court also ordered the Gilliams and Bowman to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, continuing the terms of the temporary restraining order until judgment or dismissal.  If granted, the preliminary injunction would also bar the defendants from "publishing or republishing any negative statements about Monex on any website" and require them to "remove, from any website over which they have sufficient control, all negative material about Monex that they have published or republished there, and to stop using the word MonexFRAUD."  It would also bar them from operating the MonexFRAUD website or any "other websites critical of Monex."  

Update:

04/09/09 -The court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from (1) making any efforts to extort money from Monex by threatening to publish or share information about Monex or defame Monex or its employees; (2) operating www.MonexFRAUD.com or any other website using the Monex name in combination with any modifier that implies illegal, unlawful or unethical conduct; (3) publishing or republishing on any website, including www.MonexFRAUD.com, any statement that "Monex does not have title to or the ability to deliver precious metals sold under contract to any Monex customer; that Monex was expelled from the National Futures Association for fraud; that Monex operates a boiler room; that Monex violates any federal or state statutes regulating the business operations of Monex; that Monex has been charged by the Internal Revenue Service with tax evasion; and that Monex fails to accurately disclose to customers account and trading terms (collectively "Prohibited Statements"); (4) disclosing, using, or retaining any trade secret documentation or other proprietary information belonging to Monex.  The injunction also requires the defendants to remove all previously published Prohibited Statements within 24 hours.  It does not prohibit the defendants from (a) making statements regarding their own business dealings with Monex, including losses they have sustained; or (b) communicating with any governmental entity concerning matters within the scope of that entity's legislative, administrative, or regulatory responsibilities.

05/07/2009- Monex filed an amended complaint in district court.