Actress Christianne Carafano (stage name Chase Masterson) sued Matchmaker.com, an internet dating site, after a user created a fake profile using Masterson's name, address, telephone number, and pictures.  

Matchmaker.com is an internet dating site that allows members to post their own profiles and search a database of other members' profiles.  Members fill out a  questionnaire, and their answers become part of their profile.  Matchmaker.com does not seek to verify the identity of  members or the accuracy of the profiles.  In addition, all members must agree to the Matchmaker Disclaimer, which prohibits users from putting their home address, e-mail address, or telephone number in their profile.

An anonymous individual created a Matchmaker.com profile under the name "Chase529."  The profile listed Carafano's home address and e-mail address, and included four pictures of her.  Among other things, the answers to the questionnaire indicated that the user was "looking for a one night stand" and "might be persuaded to have a homosexual experience."   Carafano claims that she received obscene phone calls and e-mails as a result of the profile.   

After learning about the profile, Carafano contacted the police.  Two days later, Carafano's website manager contacted Matchmaker.com.  Matchmaker.com removed Chase529's profile from its system.   Carafano subsequently sued Matchmaker.com and its corporate successors (Metrosplash.com and Lycos Inc.) for defamation, invasion of privacy through publication of private facts, violation of the right of publicity, and negligence.

Matchmaker.com claimed that it was immune from liability because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230").  Section 230 states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."    Carafano argued that Matchmaker.com was not simply a passive service, but actually provided content since it supplied the multiple-choice questionnaire used to create profiles. 

The district court rejected Matchmaker.com's argument based on Section 230, finding that it was partly responsible for providing profile content.  The court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the defendants because Carafano had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact for essential elements of her claims.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, but on different grounds. It held that Section 230 immunized the defendants because "Matchmaker cannot be considered an 'information content provider' under the statute because no profile has any content until a user actively creates it."  

Susan and Robert Johnson, owners of Cozy Kittens Cattery, LLC, sued consumer review site ComplaintsBoard.com, its (alleged) publishers Elizabeth Arden and Michelle Reitenger, and two ComplaintsBoard users who commented on a complaint thread about Susan Johnson and her cat breeding business. The Johnsons also sued InMotion Hosting, Inc., the hosting service for the website. The complaint alleges injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional inflication of emotional distress against all six defendants.

The complaint also includes a federal trademark infringement claim against one of the commenters, Kathleen Heineman, who allegedly violated the Johnsons' trademark rights in their "Cozy Kittens" trademark by "use of the name 'Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats'" in connection with her competing cat breeding business. (This allegation is puzzling given that Heineman's business appears to be called Boutique Kittens.)

The claims against Arden, Reitenger, ComplaintsBoard.com, and InMotion seek to hold them liable for publishing third-party content (Lowry and Heineman's comments) and refusing to remove this content upon demand by the Johnsons. These claims are likely barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it does not look like any defendant has asserted this defense so far.

The Johnsons originally filed suit in state court in Missouri in June 2008, but Heineman removed the case to federal court in October 2008. After removal, Heineman, a resident of Colorado, moved to dismiss the complaint against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion was pending as of January 15, 2009.

Before removal, the state court entered a default judgment against Melanie Lowry, who did not appear in the case. Lowry later challenged the default judgment by sending a letter to the federal district judge.

InMotion moved to dismiss the complaint in state court (grounds unknown), but did not refile the motion in federal court after removal. Based on InMotion's failure to answer or file a motion to dismiss in federal court, the Johnsons moved for entry of a default judgment against it. InMotion then appeared, arguing that the court should deny the Johnsons' motion for entry of default and hear its motion to dismiss on the merits.

Arden, Reitenger, and ComplaintsBoard.com have not appeared in the federal action. The reason for this is not clear -- they may have defaulted in the state court action, they may have settled with the Johnsons, or they may never have been served in the first place. The disputed comments no longer appear on ComplaintsBoard.com.

UPDATE:  

6/8/2009 - Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Heineman, Lowry, and InMotion Hosting 

7/10/2009 - Court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Defendants Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, ComplaintsBoard.com, and Michelle Reitenger 

8/4/2010 - 8th Circuit affirms dismissal of claims 

On December 28, 2007, Ed and Brenda Hammitt filed a defamation lawsuit in the Superior Court  of Chattooga County, Georgia against Ken Busbin, Teresa Watson, operator of RomeNewsByWatson.com, and RomeNewsByWatson.com, Inc.  The Hammits alleged that Busbin pseudonymously posted a comment on RomeNewsByWatson.com accusing them of conspiring to grow and sell marijuana. 

Watson and RomeNewsByWatson moved to dismiss the complaint based on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).  Before the court ruled on the motion, all of the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern  District of Georgia, claiming that the federal court had jurisdiction because of the federal law issue in the case.  The Hammits moved to remand the case to state court.  The federal court granted the motion to remand, holding that it could not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the case based merely on the defendants' claimed defense under CDA 230.

Currently, the case is pending in Chattooga County Superior Court.

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 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. 

Hy Cite Corporation, a company that sells dinnerware and cookware under the trademarked name "Royal Prestige," sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in Arizona federal court for defamation, RICO violations, 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.

Ripoff Report hosted 35 "rip-off" reports concerning Royal Prestige, which complained about Hy Cite's sales tactics, misleading promotional offers, the quality of its dinnerware and cookware, and its refusal to abide by the terms of its sale contracts.  The complaint alleged that these reports contained false, misleading, and defamatory statements.  The complaint further alleged that Ripoff Report itself partially created and/or developed this content by creating its own editorial comments and titles, producing original content contained in the rip-off reports, and soliciting individuals to submit reports in return for compensation. 

Hy Cite also alleged that Xcentric and Magedson violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by engaging in threatened extortion and wire fraud.  Specifically, Hy Cite claimed that Xcentric and Magedson created and solicited defamatory content and then offered to alter the content to portray the company in a good light in return for $50,000 and a $1,500 monthly retainer.  

Xcentric and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for publishing the statements of its users, and that Hy Cite failed to state a viable RICO, Lanham Act, or common law unfair competition claim. 

The district court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The court held that CDA 230 did not justify dismissal because Hy Cite had alleged that Xcentric and Magedson personally created defamatory content in editorial comments, titles, and in the rip-off reports themselves.  Slip op. at 8.  The court also indicated that Hy Cite's allegation that Ripoff Report solicited individuals to submit reports in return for compensation could support a finding that the website was responsible for the creation and development of information.  Id. (As Eric Goldman points out, this last conclusion is at odds with other case law.)

The district court treated Hy Cite's RICO claims as if they were outside of the protection of CDA 230 and held that Hy Cite adequately stated a claim based on the predicate acts of threatened extortion and wire fraud. Here, the court relied on Hy Cite's allegations that defendants created and solicited false and defamatory complaints against businesses and used these complaint to extort money from businesses through its mediation program. See id. at 10-12.

Finally, the district court dismissed Hy Cite's Lanham Act claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and disparagement, holding that the criticism of Hy Cite's business appearing on Ripoff Report was not competitive injury actionable under the Lanham Act.  Id. at 13-15. The court concluded, however, that Hy Cite's state law unfair competition claim survived because common law unfair competition is broader than the Lanham Act in imposing liability for a false and misleading misrepresentation that is likely to cause commercial harm.  Id. at 15.

The parties later settled the case.  The terms of the settlement are not public.

A.H. Barnes, a California attorney who operates several businesses that help attorneys and other individuals find employment, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in California state court for defamation 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.

Barnes alleges that anonymous users of Ripoff Report submitted false and defamatory reports claiming, among other things, that he was dishonest, that he was "cooking the books," and that he had engaged in a pattern of criminal activity including breaching the privacy of his customers, software piracy, data theft, and deliberately violating federal anti-SPAM laws and regulations. Cmplt. ¶¶ 15-17.

Barnes alleges that Ripoff Report and Magedson updated the title of the defamatory thread about him to include the statement "UPDATE Ex-Employee responds . . . SCAM, FRAUD and tons of SPAM." Id. ¶ 18. He alleges more generally that Ripoff Report "deliberately and intentionally alters the content of its purportedly anonymous third-party postings to enhance the salaciousness and magnitude of known defamatory content." Id. ¶ 8. The complaint maintains that Ripoff Report's manipulation of purported third-party content "demonstrates that Rip Off, Magedson, or both exercised at least some degree of control over Rip Off's content thus losing the right to avail themselves of the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act." Id. ¶ 18.

While the complaint only includes a defamation claim, Barnes also alleges that Ripoff Report and Magedson extort money from companies by offering them the opportunity to participate in a "corporate mediation program," in which the injured company pays Ripoff Report "to help mitigate the damages caused by the defamatory content" posted by users of the website. Id. ¶ 10. Finally, the complaint alleges that Ripoff Report uses "intensive search engine-based technologies" to get unusually high search engine rankings for defamatory content, apparently as part of its alleged scheme to put pressure on companies. See id. ¶ 9.

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.