Dale Abshire filed a lawsuit in a Texas state court against David Pearl after Pearl posted a series of allegedly defamatory responses on the Yahoo! Finance AXA Internet message board in response to Abshire's posts. According to the appellate decision in the case, Pearl's post cited sexual harassment as a reason for Abshire's termination from his previous employment.

Pearl moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the court had no personal jurisdiction over him because he resided in New York and had no ties with Texas other than mentioning it in his message board posting.  The trial court denied the motion, and Pearl appealed.

A Texas appellate court reversed the lower court decision and dismissed the case, ruling that Pearl had not "purposefully availed" himself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas. Rather, the court found that "Pearl's internet connections with Texas were in fortuitous in response to the postings of a Texas resident, Abshire."

On February 19, 2009, lawyers representing Sam Sethi, a former employee of TechCrunch and former CEO of now-defunct BlogNation, sent a letter to TechCrunch co-founder Michael Arrington threatening suit "within the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales, at the Royal Courts of Justice (in London, UK)" for libel. 

The basis for the suit is a series of allegedly defamatory posts on CrunchNotes (the TechCrunch blog) which stated, according to the letter, that:

• "[S]ome of [Sethi's] former writers have accused him of fraud and other crimes."
• Sethi "had threatened to kill" one of his former business associates.
• Sethi was "involved in '. . . usury, fraud even'" (quoting from a blog post by Oliver Starr).
• Sethi is "predisposed to making threats of violence and making others feel threatened by him and being thoroughly deceitful."

Sethi is also suing based upon the "posting [of] a confidential (and stolen) termsheet from [BlogNations'] VC funders," which, according to Sethi's lawyers, "seriously jeopardize[d]" the BlogNation's funding.  Sethi is asking TechCrunch to remove all posts that include allegedly false accusations about him, publish an apology, undertake "not to repeat the same or similar libels again," pay his legal costs, and donate damages to a charity or "towards fees of those unpaid editors at Blognation who had remained faithful to the end."

Michael Arrington replied to Sethi's letter through his lawyers, asserting that TechCrunch is "not susceptible to the jurisdiction of English courts" and that an English judgment would not be recognized or enforced by US courts.  He also provided evidence, mostly in the form of blog posts and comments by others, that he believes supports the veracity of the statements made in the CrunchNotes posts at issue.  TechCrunch has also offered Sethi the opportunity to submit a reply "concerning the challenged statements" that would be posted "with equal prominence to [TechCrunch's] previous posts about him."

According to TechCrunch, a lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2009. Based on third party reports, the lawsuit appears to have been filed in the United Kingdom.

On July 7, 2003, Kathy Knight-McConnell sued Mary Cummins for securities law violations, trademark infringement, defamation, and other claims in federal court in New York.  At the time of the litigation, Knight-McConnell ran a forum for investor discussions and published a newsletter on various stocks.  According to a court decision in the case, Cummins, a stock trader from California, posted statements on website discussion groups and on her own website describing Knight-McConnell as a securities fraud "criminal," "insane," "paid to lie to investors," and "obese," among other things.  

In addition, Knight-McConnell alleged that Cummins intentionally maligned certain stocks that she promoted in order to drive their price down in violation of the securities laws.  Knight-McConnell also claimed that Cummins violated trademark law by linking to Knight-McConnell's website without permission, using Knight-McConnell's name in the post-domain path of URLs for seven of her web-pages, and posting liniks on Internet chat forums and discussion boards directing users to visit these pages."  

In a July 2004 opinion, Judge Buchwald dismissed the securities and trademark claims.  The court indicated that Knight-McConnell had no standing to bring a securities law claim because she did not allege that she purchased or sold the stocks in question in reliance on any statement by Cummins.  The court dismissed the trademark claim because linking to Knight-McConnell's site without permission was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law:

Even if we assume that plaintiff's name is a valid and protectible mark, plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant engaged in any conduct that is likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the defendant's website.  The mere appearance on a website of a hyperlink to another site will not lead a web-user to conclude that the owner of the site he is visiting is associated with the owner of the linked site.  This is particularly true in this case because defendant's website advertises real estate and web design services, not investment services, and defendant is continuously dissassociating herself from plaintiff by criticizing her and accusing her of misconduct.

Judge Buchwald also determined that using Knight-McConnell's name in URL paths was not likely to cause confusion as a matter of law because a URL "merely shows how the website's data is organized within the host computer's files" and does not suggest affiliation, source, or sponsorship.

Looking at Knight-McConnell's many state law claims, Judge Buchwald determined that the complaint likely stated a cause of action for defamation, but that a defamation claim was not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on the court.  Buchwald indicated that Knight-McConnell's tortious interference with contract claim might be sufficient to establish jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, but that Knight-McConnell had failed to adequately plead this cause of action.  The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Knight-McConnell permission to amend her complaint.

Knight-McConnell amended her complaint, but, upon a renewed motion by Cummins, Judge Buchwald dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction in June 2005.  

Jack Gorman, a doctor of podiatric medicine, sued fellow podiatrists Allen Jacobs, John Levin, and Richard Benjamin for defamation and other tort claims based on comments they wrote on Podiatry Management Online's news forum, PM News "The Voice of Podiatrists".  The comments related to an article published in the Malpractice News section of PM News, which addressed malpractice insurance rates and contained quotes from an interview with Gorman.  According to court documents, two of the defendants' comments criticized Gorman's work as an expert for plaintiffs' lawyers in malpractice cases and another generally advocated reporting outrageous expert testimony to ethical authorities for investigation.  

Gorman inititally filed three separate lawsuits against Jacobs, Levin, and Benjamin, but the federal district court in Pennsylvania consolidated the cases.  The defendants all filed motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  In February 2009, the court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they had not expressly aimed their comments into Pennsylvania.

In June 2002, Dynacq International, Inc. subpoenaed Yahoo! seeking the identity of anonymous posters to its Yahoo! Message Board.  Yaho0! notified the anonymyous posters, and one John Doe moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena violated his right to speak anonymously and that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.  The court quashed the subpoena in a bench ruling, the details of which are not known.  Dynacq appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals of Texas, but subsequently withdrew its appeal. 

Medinah Mining Company ("Medinah"), a Nevada corporation, and Les Price, a Canadian citizen and officer and director of Medinah, sued sixteen individual defendants from Chile, Canada, and several U.S. states, alleging that they defamed Medinah and Price over the Internet, including on the Raging Bull forum. The complaint failed to identify the specific allegedly defamatory statements, saying only that the defendants' comments related to the integrity and business ethics of Medinah and Price.  Besides defamation, the complaint included ten related claims, including for tortious interference, outrage, and fraud.  

Several defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds, including failure to serve process and lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court dismissed one defendant, James Ingram, for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Ingram was a resident of Arkansas, who had never been to Nevada or done business there. The court held that Ingram's postings on the Internet were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over him to a Nevada court.  The court ultimately dismissed the entire case for failure to prosecute. 

Stephen Graham Hogge, operator of the blog, Hog on Ice, was sued in California by former Miami School of Law classmate Fatima dos Santos Fahmy over statements he made about her on his blog, which he describes as a humorist's view of "Guns, God, Food, Beer, Tools, Politics, and Whining."

According to Fahmy's complaint, which raises claims for Defamation, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and False Light Invasion of Privacy, Hogge and three unknown defendants "published numerous false, defamatory and grossly injurious statements about her" on Hogge's blog, including calling her a deadbeat, maligning her work ethic, and falsely claiming that she was Hogge's former girlfriend.

Both parties represented themselves in the case. In March 2008, Hogge, a resident of Florida, filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and insuffiency of service of process. The court initially denied the motion, but on Hogge's motion for reconsideration dismissed the case on October 14, 2008, finding that it lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over him.

Vlad Zablotskyy, a former real estate agent and operator of Go Beyond MLS, a blog that is focused on "using modern media and Internet as a marketing tool in the real estate industry," was sued by Brabus Ventures Corporation, which operates ePerks.com, a provider of sales leads for real estate agents. 

From August 2007 through February 2008, Zablotskyy wrote several blog posts criticizing ePerks.com and questioning whether ePerks was a scam. Following the posting of a number of negative comments about the company in response to Zablotskyy's posts, an ePerks attorney sent correspondence in February 2008 demanding that Zablotskyy remove all ePerks-related content from his site and cease writing about the company in the future.

Zablotskyy removed some of the material from his blog and created a post explaining why he did so.  As a result of that post, Brabus Ventures asserts in its complaint that Zablotskyy defamed the company and its products by stating that it had falsely accused Zablotskyy of being a child molester on Yahoo! Answers.  (Although the copy of the allegedly defamatory post that plaintiff attached to its complaint does not directly attribute the child molestation charge to Brabus Ventures or ePerks, another blogger has attempted to tie the Yahoo! Answers post to an IP address range associated with ePerks.)

On September 5, 2008, Zablotskyy filed a motion to quash the summons and complaint, arguing that the California court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of New Jersey.

On October 23, 2008, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action.

Mesa Airlines, which operates go! airline serving the Hawaiian islands, sued Mike Uslan, a pilot employed by rival Aloha Airlines, over postings Uslan allegedly made on the Dont Fly Go Airlines website, a blog that was critical of go!  The lawsuit asserted claims for unfair competition, trademark infringement, false advertising, and defamation.

According to filings in the case, Uslan was allegedly the founder of an organization named “Hawaii's Airline Employees Repelling Ornstein" (HERO) that sought the ouster of Jonathan Ornstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Mesa's parent company, Mesa Air Group, Inc.  

The complaint alleges that the following statements were defamatory:

• "Mesa Airlines’ employees may have been involved in a plot to murder or seriously injure a H.E.R.O member by removing the lug nuts from the member’s vehicle."  ¶ 40.
• "Mesa Airlines “cannot retain pilots because of its repeated contract violations and poor treatment of its employees.'" ¶ 43.
• "Mesa Airlines is unsafe and that Mesa Airlines’ pilot staffing in Hawaii is inadequate. ¶ 44.
• "Mesa Airlines has not supported Hawaiian communities. ¶ 45.
• "Mesa Airlines is 'dumping tickets below cost.”  ¶ 46.
• "Mesa Airlines 'abuses' its employees and that it has poor service in Hawaii due to employee turnover and dissatisfaction."  ¶ 47.
• "Mesa Airlines’ go! division ranks at the bottom of airlines in terms of complaints, lost baggage, cancellations, delays and over bookings." ¶ 48.
• "Mesa Airlines is violating Federal and Hawaii laws regarding predatory pricing." ¶ 49.
• The statement that “We should probably mention that the S.E.C., Capitol Hill, and a federal court judge aren’t happy, either.” ¶ 50.

Initially, Dont Fly Go Airlines was registered to Domains by Proxy ("DBP"), an Arizona-based website hosting company that allows content providers to remain anonymous. The website was taken down after DBP received a letter from Mesa's counsel requesting removal of content that allegedly infringed on Mesa's trademark. In November 2006, the website was reactivated in a new format. Mesa's counsel again wrote to DBP and asked for removal of the allegedly infringing content and for the names of entities or persons responsible for the site. Subsequently, DBP ceased hosting the website; and a company in China began to host the site.

On June 25, 2007, the court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, noting that Uslan is a resident of the State of Hawaii and did not have sufficient contacts with the state of Arizon to warrant personal jurisdiction over him.