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.

Counsel for Newt Gingrich, Saul Anuzis, and American Solutions for Winning the Future sent a cease-and-desist letter to The Truth About EFCA.org, a website advocating in favor of enacting the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. The website is run anonymously, so the letter was sent to its domain registrar ContactPrivacy.com (owned by Tucows, Inc.).  It was cc'd  to Twitter, Inc. 

The letter complains about a Twitter user going by the handle EFCANOW who tweeted the following on May 2, 2009:  "Join @newtgingrich @sanuzis in signing the EFCA Freedom Not Fear petition at http://action.americanright... WSJ." The letter demands "that you immediately take down an illegal and fraudulent posting on Twitter . . . which falsely purports to be written by our clients and unlawfully uses the name of Messrs. [Newt] Gingrich and [Saul] Anuzis."  

The letter asserts that the continued publication of the offending tweet "can expose any and all involved parties (including Twitter, ContactPrivacy.com and/or TwoCows [sic]) to substantial, ongoing, and even personal liability," and claims that the tweet constitutes trademark infringement, violation of Gingrich's and Anuzis' publicity rights, false advertising, false designation of origin, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and contractual relations, common law and computer trespass, conversion, traditional fraud and wire fraud, breach of contract, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and RICO violations.

On May 5, 2009, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster sent a letter to craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster threatening company management with "criminal investigation and prosecution" over the website's erotic services section, as well as "the unrestricted manner in which graphic pornographic pictures are posted and displayed by users on the craigslist site and their accessibility to minors."  The letter demanded that craigslist permanently remove those portions of the site "containing categories for and functions allowing for the solicitation of prostitution and the dissemination and posting of graphic pornographic material" by May 15, 2009. 

Buckmaster posted a response on the craigslist blog, stating that, while the company looks forward to speaking with Mr. McMaster about his concerns, it "see[s] no legal basis whatsoever for filing a lawsuit against craigslist or its principals and hope[s] that the Attorney General will realize this upon further reflection." 

Update:

5/12/2009 - After conferring with other state AGs, craigslist voluntarily dropped its "erotic services" section and said it would replace it with a new "adult services" category that will be manually reviewed by Craigslist staff.

5/15/2009 - South Carolina AG McMaster announced that he had "no alternative but to move forward with criminal investigation and potential prosecution" because the website "continues to display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material."

5/20/09 - Craigslist filed a lawsuit against McMaster in South Carolina federal court, seeking a declaration that its conduct is lawful and an injunction prohibiting McMaster from making further threats of prosecution and pursuing any such prosecution.

5/22/09- McMaster agreed to entry of a temporary restraining order pending a ruling on the merits of craigslist's claims.  He will refrain from "initiating or pursuing any prosecution against craigslist or its officers and employees in relation to content posted by third parties on craigslist's website."