Welcome to the website of the Digital Media Law Project. The DMLP was a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society from 2007 to 2014. Due to popular demand the Berkman Klein Center is keeping the website online, but please note that the website and its contents are no longer being updated. Please check any information you find here for accuracy and completeness.
Attorneys at Favaro & Gorman Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Jennifer Meale and Xcentric Ventures, LLC over allegedly defamatory posts made anonymously by Meale on Ripoff Report, a consumer review website. It is not clear how the law determined that Meale was responsible for the anonymous reports.
According to the Northwest Herald, Xcentric was named as a defendant because it failed to remove the allegedly defamatory postings despite repeated requests from Favaro & Gorman. Xcentric will likely raise section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a defense.
Strax Rejuvenation and Aesthetics Institute, a plastic surgery clinic in Lauderhill, Florida, filed a lawsuit in May 2008 against a patient who allegedly posted a defamatory review of her treatment on CitySearch.com. The patient, Marshia Durham, said in news reports that she stands by her review, which accused Strax of mishandling her tummy tuck and facelift. She said she posted her comments on the web using only her first name. Durham's review has since been removed from the site.
On May 5, 2009, Durham filed a notice of lack of prosecution after no activity had occurred in the suit for more than ten months. If no action takes place within sixty days of the notice's filing, the court may dismiss the suit.
Ingham County Commissioner and Michigan political consultant Mark Grebner filed a defamation lawsuit in Michigan state court against three conservative activists for allegedly inserting false and defamatory information into his biographical Wikipedia entry. The defendants were three university students active in Republican politics: Dennis Lennox, Bradley Dennis, and Anthony Giammarinaro. According to the Michigan Messenger, the allegedly defamatory edits accused Grebner of being a homosexual and of having been convicted of sexually abusing children. One defendant also allegedly inserted a picture of Osama bin Laden
into the entry with the caption “One of Grebner’s biggest supporters in
the 2004 election.” Wikipedia removed the edits in question.
After discovery, the case was referred to mediation where the claims against all three defendants were resolved. According to the docket, the complaint against Dennis was dismissed without prejudice and without costs on March 19, 2010. Ultimately, the trial court entered a stipulation and order for entry of judgment regarding the remaining claims against Lennox and Giammarianaro on Feb, 25, 2011 when, according to a report on a local political blog, Lennox agreed to pay Grebner $1,500.
James Ricobene filed suit against JP Morgan Chase and collection agency Universal Tracing Services (UTS) after a UTS employee allegedly posted a message on Ricobene's daughter's MySpace page threatening legal action if he did not surrender his 2007 Mercedes GL450, which he apparently used as collateral to secure a loan from Chase.
According to Ricobene's complaint, the message posted on Gina Ricobene's MySpace page read as follows:
We have been retained by, JPMorgan Chase Bank, to locate and repossess
their missing collateral a 2007 Mercedes GL 450. Please contact our
office immediately so we can discuss the peaceful recovery of the
collateral. Failure to contact me will result in further action against
your father James Ricobene. Legal options range from having a replevin
order served on you or even worse reporting the collateral as stolen to
local authorities in Illinois under the A.R.S. act 18-5-504. Failure to
comply with this notice of surrender is a class 5 felony and carries a
maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years plus all applicable
surcharges. You must contact the writer within 5 days to prevent this
action from taking place. You can contact me directly at 800-667-7704
ext 222 or directly at 604-267-1581 ext. 222
Awaiting your immediate response.
Chris Flanagan
Senior investigator
Complaint ¶ 6. Ricobene's complaint points out that refusing to return collateral without a court order is not a crime in Illinois, and that "there is no such thing as a 'class 5 felony' in Illinois." Complaint ¶¶ 11, 13. It also alleges that friends and family members saw the message on MySpace, causing Ricobene humiliation, embarassment, and emotional distress.
Ricobene's complaint includes claims of libel, false light invasion of privacy, and consumer fraud. According to Chicago Breaking News, his daughter Gina has also filed suit, claiming invasion of privacy and consumer fraud.
According to On Point News, UTS denies having an employee by the name stated in the post and claims that "no employee 'has ever posted anything on anyone's MySpace page." Its website, however, boasts that "Universal tracing prides itself in using the latest technology and resources to track down and locate the hardest to find missing persons, and debtors." (emphasis in original)
This week brings word of two new cases testing whether state shield laws apply to user comments posted on news websites. In Texas, a Taylor County District Court judge ruled that the Abilene Reporter-News may refrain from disclosing the identities of commenters who posted comments to articles about a murder victim and the teenager charged in connection with his death.
On February 13, 2009, Tim Blixseth, a real estate developer and shareholder in the bankrupt Montana ski resort Yellowstone Club, filed a complaint in Massachusets federal court against Bresnan Communications, a New York-based ISP, and 100 unnamed defendants. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Blixseth was entitled to obtain from Bresnan Communications the identity of one of its subscribers, an anonymous commenter to the NewWest.net website going by the moniker "Sharkbait."
Blixseth alleged that Sharkbait made a death threat against him in the comments section to an NewWest article on the Yellowstone Club bankruptcy. Counsel for Blixseth contacted NewWest shortly after the alleged death threat was posted, and the site's publisher agreed to remove the comment and disclose Sharkbait's IP address.
The same day the complaint was filed, Blixseth served a subpoena on Bresnan Communications requesting that it provide identifying information for Sharkbait's IP address. Counsel for Bresnan Communications objected to the subpoena, citing federal law prohibiting cable operators from divulging customer information without a court order and notice to the subscriber.
Blixseth then filed an emergency motion seeking an order requiring Bresnan Communications to turn over the requested information and a motion to seal. The district court subsequently denied both motions. There has been no activity on the docket since mid-February 2009.
New Jersey police Chief Charles "Ken" Zisahas filed suit against an elementary school teacher in New Jersey state court, asserting that she made defamatory comments about him on a NJ.com, a local news website and forum. According to newsreports, the suit claims Deborah Labrosse stated that Zisa runs his police department by "Gestapo rules" and that she made other comments allegedly intended to damage Zisa's reputation.
Labrosse has told the press that she thinks Zisa filed the suit to intimidate her and stifle her criticism.
Labrosse filed a counterclaim against Zisa, asserting that he violated her First Amendment right to free speech and tampered with her forum posts, according to news reports. In her counterclaim, Labrosse also asserts Zisa subjected her to improper surveillance.
According to news reports, Labrosse filed motions for dismissal and summary judgment on April 17, 2009, but the judge said he lacked enough information to grant the motions so early on in the litigation.
In August 2005, Ridgefield New Jersey mayor Anthony R. Suarez sued Ridgefield resident Michael Mecca, who had allegedly posted defamatory content to the Ridgefield forum on NJ.com under the alias "Voter12345." According to court filings, the allegedly defamatory content indicated that the mayor took part in a politically motivated raid on Mecca's house and was present when police showed up at the door to investigate an anonymous tip that he had an illegal apartment. (App. Ct. Op. 2.) At a deposition, however, Mecca admitted that the incident had been relayed to him by his friend, Ridgefield municipal prosecutor Marc Ramundo, and had not actually occurred in front of either Mecca or Ramundo. According to the Appellate Court opinion, Mecca believed that the story was true. (App. Ct. Op. 3.)
The trial court granted summary judgment to Mecca, finding that Suarez had "failed to show any harm to his reputation, or damages, resulting from the claimed defamatory conduct." (App. Ct. Op. 2.) Upon appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court's ruling, upholding the grant of summary judgment for Mecca.
According to NorthJersey.com, Mecca has filed a malicious prosecution suit against Suarez. The jury in that case found, however, that Suarez's defamation suit was not malicious.
Spelios and Associates, a North Carolina dental practice, filed a lawsuit in North Carolina against a former patient, asserting that she made defamatory comments about the practice on the Charlotte News & Observer'swebsite. In its complaint, Spelios and Associates, P.A., asserts that Lorna Dewalle posted comments in March 2009 that falsely stated that plaintiff's staff "blatantly lied and misdiagnosed" her during an appointment. Compl. ¶ 16.
According to the complaint and news articles, the dispute arose when the staff's recommended treatment of Dewalle conflicted with that of another dentist. Compl. ¶ 11. Spelios and Associates asserts that patients have canceled
appointments because of Dewalle's statements.
The Charlotte News & Observerreports that attorney Bill Mills is representing Dewalle pro bono. According to the newspaper, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May that states, "Everything said or written by the defendant was a fair comment by a consumer about a professional licensed by the state of North Carolina and therefore cannot be the basis of a claim of libel or slander."
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.
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.
Anika Wilson, a psychiatrist in Alabama, filed a lawsuit against Tara McCollum and two pseudonymous posters on AL.com, the website for the Birmingham News, Huntsville Times, and several other newspapers in Alabama.
According to Wilson's complaint, McCollum sent an email to a third-party in which she defamed Wilson by falsely claiming that she had been "stalking" McCollum and "trying to slander" her in the community. Compl. ¶ 2. Wilson also alleges in her complaint that two users going by the names "tphorse" and "zjones16" posted defamatory comments on AL.com in February and March 2009, falsely stating, among other things, that she was "responsible for all of that taxpayer money getting stolen" and that she is "diseased and crazy and sleeping with every married man." Compl. ¶¶ 4-5.
Wilson's six-count complaint includes claims for defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and publication of private
facts. She also leaves open the possibility of adding additional defendants:
Other screen names or defendants may have defamed the plaintiff on internet forums, emails, message boards, blogs, or other computer based communications. Plaintiff will amend to add additional defendants and specific defamatory matter when discovered.
Doherty Enterprises, Inc., a large Applebee's restaurant franchisee with approximately 80 restaurants in New Jersey and neighboring states, sued Michael Murray for defamation and trade libel over a critical comment posted to a September 2008 article on NorthJersey.com, the online edition of The Record.
The article in question contained an interview with Ed Doherty, the founder and president of Doherty Enterprises. In the interview, Ed Doherty stated that he believes he “treat[s employees] with dignity and respect and provide[s] a great opportunity for them to have a good job . . . . I want the people that work for me never to want to leave me.” When asked what his "recipe for success was," Doherty replied: “Don't lie, don't steal. And treat everybody the way you want to be treated. If you do that, you've lived a good life. . . . It's so simple.”
Michael Murray posted the following comment:
I find this article quite disturbing with respect to how Ed Doherty represents how he treats people. I am an advocate involved in a sexual harassment case and have arbitration transcripts which demonstrate that women . . . are routinely sexually harassed and that this behavior is condoned by high level management at Doherty Enterprises right up to the top. His General Managers & Area Managers commit perjury, obstruct and/ or [sic] ignore sexual harassment claims with immunity
[sic]. This man and his rhetoric are repugnant and fly in the face of the facts. . . . . Additionally, any reader who has a daughter, wife etc. [sic] working for Doherty are more than likely being subjected to similar treatment. . . .
At the time, Murray, a non-lawyer, was representing his daughter in the arbitration of a sexual harassment case against Doherty Enterprises, in which she claimed that she was sexually harassed by managers and employees of the Applebee’s at which she worked. In late 2007, Murray had rejected a settlement offer on behalf of his daughter.
Doherty Enterprises filed suit, and both parties moved for summary judgment in April 2009. In May 2009, the court granted summary judgment to Murray, dismissing all of the claims against him. The court ruled that certain of the statements -- such as that Doherty's rhetoric was "repugnant" and that others were "likely being subject to similar treatment" -- were "pure opinion" subject to an absolute privilege.
The court determined that the remaining statements related to a matter of public concern and that Doherty became a public figure for purposes of New Jersey law when he gave an interview with The Record, thus “voluntarily and knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that one in his position should reasonably know would implicate a legitimate public interest, engendering the real possibility of public attention and scrutiny.” Therefore, the court held that the "actual malice" standard applied. Applying this standard, the court found that Murray had sufficient evidentiary support from the arbitration proceedings "to defeat any claim that these statements were made with the recklessness required."
The court refused to dismiss Murray's counterclaim for abuse of process, finding that factual issues remained about whether Doherty Enterprises brought the lawsuit with an "ulterior motive" to allegedly punish Murray refusing to settle the arbitration proceeding.
According to one press account, Doherty Enterprises and Murray subsequently settled for an undisclosed amount.
On December 22, 2008, Deborah Dolen, author of several "Do It Yourself" craft books, sued Julie Ryals and an unknown poster, listed on the complaint as "Jane Doe Libel Cyberstalker," for negative statements about Dolen that appeared on BustedScammers.com. Dolen, acting pro se, alleged internet fraud, cyberstalking, libel, defamation, and disparagement. She requested a temporary injunction shutting down Ryals' servers hosting The Design Shoppe.com and BustedScammers.com, as well as $100,000 for each "violation."
On January, 21, 2009, Dolen filed an amended complaint which added Mary Joanne Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, and Mary Harvey as defendants alleging that Mary Kidd was the co-owner of BustedScammers.com and that Jeff Kidd and Harvey committed libel through chat room activity. Dolen also added counts of trade libel and copyright infringement.
On February 18, 2009, Ryals filed an answer and counterclaims as well as a motion for summary judgment. Ryals' answer denied that she had any ownership interest in BustedScammers.com, and her counterclaims alleged that Dolen defamed and slandered her on Topix.com. Ryals' requested an injunction preventing Dolen from contacting her or posting information about her. Ryals also alleges that Dolen is cybersquatting on JulieRyals.com and requests transfer of the domain name to her. The Kidds and Harvey submitted substantially similar answers, counterclaims, and motions for summary judgment.
On February 27, 2009, the court determined Dolen's current claims may be adversely affected by her bankruptcy matter, and the court stayed the case until bankruptcy proceedings concluded. The court lifted the stay and
reinstated the defendants' claims against Dolen in September 2009.
On September 17, 2009, Kent Rowald, the defendants' lawyer, filed
a third-party complaint against Dolen, claiming that Dolen had
defamed him. The court severed Rowald's complaint from the case, and
ordered both parties to remove from the Internet all critical
comments each made about the other.
In October 2009, the court sua sponte ordered the case transferred
to the Middle District of Florida.
On June 17, 2010, Dolen filed a second amended complaint, wherein
she made claims of trademark infringement, defamation, false light,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ryals.
Dolen's new complaint made no claims against Mary Kidd, Jeffery Kidd,
or Mary Harvey. Both Ryals and the Kidds filed answers and
counterclaims. The Kidds also filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, based on their absence from the second amended complaint.
On February 24, 2011, the court granted the Kidds' motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Dolen's claims against them
with prejudice. The court also dismissed the counterclaims
the Kidds made in their response to Dolen's second amended complaint. Further, the court denied Dolen's motion to file a
third amended complaint.
Update:
April 18, 2011: A jury trial on the remaining claims in the case begins.
April 22, 2011: The court grants cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Dolen had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her claims against Ryals, and that Ryals had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her counterclaim against Dolen.
May 5, 2011: The defendants move for an award of attorneys' fees, seeking $218,189.10 in attorney's fees and litigation costs.
Feburary 10, 2012: A magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation that the defendants be awarded $6,300 in attorney's fees, identifying twelve frivolous motions filed by the plaintiff. The magistrate rejects the defendants' argument for further fees and costs.
March 22, 2012: The court adopts the magistrate's report and recommendation, and orders the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants for 6,300.
March 23, 2012: Judgment enters consistent with the March 22 order.
Front page of BustedScammers implies that there was an e-mail threat too. Worth contacting Ryals if possible to find out more.
Blogger with knowledge who offers to help: Dustin Cagnina 708-209-1746.
Source: Marc Randazza, via e-mail
GSPENCE COMMENTS UNPUBLISHED FOR VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY GUIDELINES (PERSONAL ATTACKS; FALSE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS) . PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH.
On March 30, 2009, Dr. Barry Eppley, a plastic surgeon in the Indianapolis area, filed a lawsuit against former patient, Lucille Iacovelli. The complaint included claims for defamation, trade disparagement, harassment, false designations and
descriptions of fact, and false light publicity based on webpages,
videos, and postings Iacovelli allegedly made regarding her past
surgery experience with Eppley. Eppley also asked for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Iacovelli from carrying out or writing about an alleged plan to commit suicide and publicize it in order to destroy his career.
The court granted a temporary restraining order preventing Iacovelli from publishing anything related to a suicide attempt, her prior treatment by Eppley, or commenting on Eppley's role in preventing the suicide attempt the same day. Following a hearing on April 8, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker issued an order extending the temporary restraining order until April 18.
On April 9, 2009, Iacovelli filed an answer to Eppley's complaint and counter sued Eppley, his lawyer Todd Richarson, and Lewis & Kappes (Richardson's law firm). On April 13, 2009, the court accepted Iacovelli's answer to the complaint but rejected her counterclaims as not conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 17, the court granted Eppley's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Iacovelli's speech would not likely be protected
by the First Amendment due to its defamatory and likely false nature
as well as its lack of advancement of debate on a public issue.
The preliminary injunction prevents Iacovelli or anyone in active concert with her fromposting on the internet or emailing about Eppley, Eppley's attorneys, Lewis & Kappes, or referencing Eppley's actions with respect to Iacovelli's suicide threats. It also requires herto remove any information about Eppley from any websites she controls, remove www.eppleyplasticsurgerysucks.com, www.barryeppleyplasticsurgeon.com, and www.lewis-kappessucks.com in their entirety, and refrain from registering any new websites that use Eppley's name. It also requires herto remove any links to the listed websites until the conclusion of the lawsuit.
Too Much Media, LLC ("TMM"), a software company that services the online adult entertainment business, sued Washington-based blogger Shellee Hale in New Jersey state court in June 2008, after she posted comments about a security breach in TMM's software product on Oprano.com, an online forum for those in the online adult entertainment industry. The complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and trade libel.
In March 2009, Hale moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that counsel for TMM had withdrawn all claims but "slander per se" in a January hearing, and that slander only applies to oral statements. TMM opposed the motion, arguing that it had not limited its claim to slander in the January hearing, and that it can recover for libel without showing proof of pecuniary loss.
Also in March 2009, Hale filed a separate motion asking the court to rule that New Jersey's journalist shield law protected her from having to testify about the identity of her confidential sources in her upcoming deposition. In a certification accompanying the motion, Hale testified that she reports on Internet security issues through several blogs (www.camandago.com; www.shelleehale.net/blog; and www.shelleeland.com), as well as on electronic bulletin boards and websites, and that she has developed relationships with confidential sources as part of her reporting and investigative processes. TMM opposed the motion, arguing that Hale is not a "newsperson" within the meaning of the shield law.
The court held hearings on these motions on April 17 and April 24, 2009 and reserved decision for a later date.
UPDATE:
7/02/2009- The court ruled that Hale's conduct was not protected by shield laws and that the defamation suit against her may continue.
04/22/10 - The appeals court ruled that Hale was not entitled to protection under New Jersey's shield law because she was not working as a journalist or a reporter when she posted comments about Too Much Media LLC, according to NJ.com.
06/7/2011 - The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed and remanded for
further proceedings. It held that New Jersey's shield law requires a
party attempting to invoke the law to establish (1) a connection to
news media; (2) a purpose to
gather, procure, transmit, compile, edit, or disseminate news; and (3),
that the materials sought were obtained in the course of
pursuing professional newsgathering activities. The Court noted that
"news media" were defined to include both “newspapers, magazines, press
associations, news agencies, wire services, radio, [and] television”
and “other similar . . . means of disseminating news to the general
public." While the Court recognized that electronic communication
could, in certain circumstances, be "similar" to the traditional media
listed in the statute, it held that the online message board used by
Hale was more a forum for conversation than a medium for dissemination
of news and therefore did not satisfy the statute.
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.
On May 16, 2002, Equidyne Corporation, a medical device company, sued twenty-one John Doe defendants (identified by pseudonyms) who posted statements about the company on the Yahoo! and Lycos financial message boards. Equidyne claimed that the defendants were current or former employees, that they signed confidentiality agreements, and that their postings to the websites violated their confidentiality agreements. Equidyne also argued that the postings violated federal securities laws.
Equidyne obtained permission of the court to subpoena Yahoo and Lycos to obtain information that would identify who used the twenty-one pseudonyms. Lycos identified five defendants. Three of these defendants, including Henry Rhodes, moved to dismiss the complaint. Equidyne voluntarily dismissed its complaint against two of the defendants, but not Rhodes. The court ultimately granted Rhodes' motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Yahoo provided notice of the subpoena to its relevant subscribers by email. One such defendant, going by the moniker Aeschylus_2000, filed a motion to quash the subpoena, invoking the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. According to CyberSLAPP, the district judge applied the standard from
Dendrite v. Doe and found that Equidyne had shown a prima facie case
under federal securities laws and denied the motion to quash. The court also denied a motion to reargue. Aeschylus appealed to the Third Circuit arguing that the district court judge misapplied the Dendrite standard.
First Cash Financial Services, a Texas-based company operating a chain of pawn shops and cash checking services, obtained a subpoena from a California state court requiring Yahoo to provide identifying information for an individual who posted anonymous comments to Fast Cash's Yahoo! Finance message board. Fast Cash sought the information in order to identify the John Doe defendant in a breach of contract action it had previously filed in Texas state court. (For details, see the related database entry, First Cash Financial Services v. Doe.) The anonymous poster intervened and filed a special motion to strike the action (including the subpoena) under California's anti-SLAPP statute. According to EFF, the California court denied the motion to strike, presumably allowing the subpoena to be enforced.
First Cash Financial Services, a Texas-based company operating a chain of pawn shops and cash checking services, sued a John Doe defendant in Texas state court. The complaint alleged breach of contract arsing out of critical statements about the firm's accounting practices posted to Fast Cash's Yahoo! Finance message board.
After obtaining permission of the Texas court, First Cash asked a California state court to issue a subpoena requiring Yahoo to provide identifying information for the anonymous poster. A clerk of the court issued the subpoena, and the anonymous poster filed a special motion to strike the action (including the subpoena) under California's anti-SLAPP statute. According to EFF, the California court denied the motion to strike, presumably allowing the subpoena to be enforced.
The CMLP was not able to find any information about what happened to the case upon its return to Texas state court.
Cyd Duffin, principal of Colony High School in Palmer, Alaska sued MySpace, Inc. and John Doe defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy over the posting of a fake MySpace profile, which falsely depicted her "as a drug-using racist with a sexually transmitted disease who insults disabled students and likes books about pornography, anarchy and the Ku Klux Klan," according to the Anchorage Daily News. The Anchorage Daily News also reported that Duffin dismissed MySpace from the case after the company agreed to cooperate by turning over records related to the creation of the fake profile.
UPDATE:
7/14/2009 - Duffin dismissed the suit after two students confessed to authoring the fake profile. Though the two students were punished, Duffin did not disclose the severity of their punishment.
We are looking for contributing authors with expertise in media law, intellectual property, First Amendment, and other related fields to join us as guest bloggers. If you are interested, please contact us for more details.
Copyright 2007-24 Digital Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details. Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.
Description:
Attorneys at Favaro & Gorman Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Jennifer Meale and Xcentric Ventures, LLC over allegedly defamatory posts made anonymously by Meale on Ripoff Report, a consumer review website. It is not clear how the law determined that Meale was responsible for the anonymous reports.
According to the Northwest Herald, Xcentric was named as a defendant because it failed to remove the allegedly defamatory postings despite repeated requests from Favaro & Gorman. Xcentric will likely raise section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a defense.