Tedd W. Mason, a high school football player, filed a lawsuit against his teammate and MySpace.com user, Matthew Grey, for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy, false light, and defamation.  Grey allegedly punched Mason. Mason brought claims of defamation and other speech torts over Grey’s alleged discussion of Mason’s health on Grey’s MySpace.com page. Mason also brought suit against Grey’s parents, Rick and Kasia Gay, and the Riverside Unified School District.

According to Mason's complaint, he asserts that Grey, without warning, struck Mason with “a minimum of six punches to the face and head” on January 4, 2005 in the North High football team room.  Following this incident, the Riverside Unified School District allegedly mandated that Grey satisfy an "Anger Management Requirement."  Mason also contends that Grey sent him a written apology. Mason’s eight-count complaint  alleges that on or about August 3, 2005, Grey, after completing his Anger Management course, posted a message on his public page on myspace.com, a post that reads in part “FUCK TEDD . . .  I found out that im inelligable [sic] today and for some reason Tedd Mason is in need of MRI for his ‘severe headaches’ and yet he can still go full speed at practice everyday. Odd isn’t it . . .”  Compl. ¶ 47.

Mason claims that this post attempts to expose him “to hatred, contempt, ridicule or disgrace by alleging that [he] is of a dishonest character,” and  “to demonstrate that [he] is a liar, and therefore is defamatory on its face.” Compl. ¶¶ 48-49.

In addition, Mason asserts a claim for public disclosure of private facts: the disclosure of his private “health condition.” Compl. ¶ 54. Further, Mason claims that this “public disclosure was an unfair and inaccurate depiction” and therefore asserts a claim of false light invasion of privacy. Compl. ¶ 62.

Mason claims that employees of Riverside Unified School District “disclosed private facts about [his] health condition to . . . persons not authorized to receive such information, including . . . Matthew Grey, . . . Kasia Gay, and… Rick Gay,” and he asserts a claim of public disclosure of private facts. Compl. ¶ 81.

Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay each answered Mason’s complaint on Feb 16, 2006. They each put forth thirteen affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, estoppel, unclean hands, justification, and assumption of risk.

On August 20, 2007 Mason settled his claims of negligence and public disclosure against Riverside Unified School District for $75,000. Kasia and Rick Gay moved for summary judgment on August 24, 2007, arguing that Mason's settlement with the school gave them a right of off set. This motion was denied. On July 21, 2008 Mason settled his claims against Grey, Kasia Gay and Rick Gay for an undisclosed amount.  

Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler filed suit against anonymous Blogspot bloggers who allegedy impersonated him and girlfriend Erin Brady.  Tyler brought claims of false light invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, and misappropriation of likeness.  

The defendants allegedly created at least two Blogspot blogs that impersonated Tyler and his girlfriend.  The blog tylers849021.blogspot.com (now removed) allegedly featured photos of Tyler and discussed details about Tyler's private life. The blogger posted under the name "STEVEN" and signed each post "ST."  A similar blog -- shelikespurple.blogspot.com -- allegedly impersonated Brady in the same manner. 

Though Tyler named 20 John Does as defendants, his complaint suggests that a single blogger may have engaged in the alleged acts.  The complaint also alleges that the defendants previously had operated similar blogs that Tyler convinced Google to take down in 2007.

Tyler's lawsuit, which he filed in California Superior Court, seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against the blogger(s) as well as damages.

The California law firm Peters & Freedman sued Elizabeth and Arnold McMahon for libel and invasion of privacy based on statements they posted on their website, American Homeowners Resource Center, which describes itself as a “public interest interactive website for homeowners” to "help citizens in homeowner associations . . . take back their homes from the two generations of crooked lawyers, politicians, judges and vendors who have stolen them."

The law firm, which specializes in homeowners’ association law, asserts in its complaint that the McMahons falsely accused it of committing illegal and unprofessional conduct while representing homeowners associations in various lawsuits. One of the law firms lawyers, Jeffrey Pratt, also sued the McMahons for libel. See the related entry, Pratt v. McMahon, for more information.

On September 27, 2006, the McMahons filed a motion under California's anti-SLAPP statute to strike the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff's claims arose from the exercise of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and to petition for the redress of grievances.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, and a California appellate court affirmed, holding that the comments “do not concern a public issue."

The case is set for a jury trial on 1/12/09.

Diane Wargo sued Mario Lavandeira, also known as Perez Hilton, and 25 anonymous PerezHilton.com posters in Ohio state court after Lavandeira published an email containing homophobic slurs that Wargo sent to the blog from her work email account.

The posted version of the email included Wargo's full name, work email address, and the name of her employer. Wargo's employer fired her after it became aware of the email and received harassing emails and telephone calls. Wargo's complaint alleges that publishing her personal information violated PerezHilton.com's terms of use and privacy policy.

In the lawsuit, Wargo seeks $25 million in damages on thirteen claims, including invasion of privacy through publication of private facts, breach of contract, fraud, negligence, defamation, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Wargo also seeks a preliminary injunction against Lavandeira to prevent him from publicizing her personal information on his website.

Update:

08/27/08 - Case was removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio

10/03/08 - Court granted Lavandeira's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and entered judgment against Wargo.

On February 20, 2008, an anonymous plaintiff sued Jason Fortuny in Illinois federal court for copyright infringement, invasion of privacy through the publication of private facts, and intrusion, after Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted his photograph and personal information on the Internet.

Mr. Fortuny, a now-famous Internet "troll" who was featured in an August 2008 New York Times article, performed a notorious "Craigslist Experiment" in 2006, in which he posted a fake ad on Craigslist pretending to be a woman seeking a “str8 brutal dom muscular male” for sex. According to the New York Times, over one-hundred men responded, providing photographs and contact information. Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted this material to his blog, RFJason, and Encyclopedia Dramatica (described by the New York Times as "an online compendium of troll humor and troll lore"). Mr. Fortuny disputes posting the photographs and contact information to Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

One of the men who responded to Mr. Fortuny's prank filed the Illinois lawsuit, claiming that Fortuny violated his copyrights and invaded his privacy by posting his photograph and personal information. The complaint seeks $75,000 in damages and requests an injunction requiring Mr. Fortuny to remove the photograph and contact information from his website.

Mr. Fortuny is representing himself in the lawsuit. On July 11th, 2008, he filed a letter that the court treated as a motion to dismiss. The motion, in which Mr. Fortuny challenged the court's jurisdiction over him and the substance of the plaintiff's claims, is pending.

Before filing suit, the anonymous plaintiff sent Mr. Fortuny and his web host a DMCA takedown notice. Mr. Fortuny sent a counter-notification, and his host restored the material. Please see our related database entry, Doe v. Fortuny (Correspondence).

Update:

4/9/09 - The court entered a default judgment against Fortuny, requiring him to pay $74,252.56 in damages, attorneys fees, and costs.