On December 15, 2008, Intellect Art Media, Inc., a Massachusetts-based company that operates a college-level summer program called Swiss Finance Academy, sued Mathew Milewski, a student at Fordham University; Xcentric Ventures, LLC, operators of the website RipoffReport.com; and five anonymous posters for defamation.  Intellect Art Media's claims were based on comments Milewski and others had posted on Ripoff Report, a consumer complaint site, regarding the Swiss Finance Academy program. The complaint also alleged a claim for breach of contract against Milewski and a products liability claim against Xcentric. Intellect Art Media later sought leave to amend the complaint to include six more causes of action against Xcentric, including tortious interference with prospective business relations, tortious interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, common law negligence, and injurious falsehoods. 

In April 2009, the defendants separately moved to dismiss. The Supreme Court of New York dismissed all claims except the breach of contract claim against Milewksi. The court dismissed the defamation claim against Milewski, characterizing his criticism of Swiss Finance Academy as personal opinion that is protected by the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the context of the website revealed that Milewski was "a disgruntled consumer and that his statements reflect his personal opinion based upon his personal dealing with plaintiff." The court also noted that Milewski's description of the program as a "bait and switch scam" and as a "joke" were "loose, figurative or hyperbolic" statements and were therefore unactionable.

The court likewise dismissed the defamation claim against Xcentric because Intellect Art Media failed to cite affirmative statements made by Xcentric, despite a general allegation that Xcentric added "defamatory headings" in Milewski's post. The court also found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Xcentric from liability as “[nlo 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.” 47 USCA § 230 (c) (1).

The court disposed of the products liability claim against Xcentric, reasoning that the website is probably a "service" rather than a "product," and that even if the Ripoff Report were a "product," Intellect Art had not proven it to be "defective."

The court summarily denied Intellect Art Media leave to amend the complaint to add the six other causes of action and denied Intellect Art Media's request for discovery to identify Does 1-5 because the Intellect Art Media failed to allege defamatory statements made by the anonymous posters.

The court did not dismiss the breach of contract claim against Milewksi, and transferred the claim to the Civil Court of the City of New York on jurisdictional grounds.

Platinum Equity, LLC, the parent company of the Union-Tribune newspaper, sent a letter to the San Diego Reader, another local newspaper with a website edition, cautioning them against publishing a story on two lawsuits charging Platinum with workplace sexual harassment.

In June 2009, when a CNBC report publicized the two lawsuits, the Reader asked Platinum’s public relations executive, Mark Barnhill, for a comment. Platinum responded with a six-page letter sent to the editor and publisher of the Reader and two of its reporters, warning them that Platinum would file a defamation suit if the newspaper published a story suggesting that Platinum engaged in wrongdoing as alleged in the lawsuits. 

Platinum's lawyers also marked the letter "Confidential Legal Notice" and threatened legal action for "breach of such confidence and a violation of the Copyright Act" if the Reader published the letter in whole or in part. 

The Reader published no in-depth coverage of the two lawsuits, but mentioned the lawsuit in two articles. In one, the Reader commented specifically on Platinum's threat letter and its assertion of confidentiality and copyright.  The article included a copy of the letter for download. 

As of the time of writing, neither Platinum nor its lawyers have pursued any legal claims against the newspaper or individuals involved.

On August 20, 2009, counsel for the Miami Herald sent a cease and desist letter to Bill Cooke, the blogger behind Random Pixels, accusing him of copyright infringement.  The Herald alleged that Random Pixels was reproducing entire articles and large size pictures from the newspaper on the blog. The cease and desist letter requested that Cooke remove any full-length articles, and limit all photo reproductions to smaller thumbnail sizes.

The blogger responded to the Herald's claims by asserting that the articles he copied are about 20 years old and hence "historic artifacts." He also noted that the pictures he used have been reduced substantially from their original size, although not to a thumbnail size.  Cooke has so far refused to comply with the Herald's demands.

Advanced Armament Corp., a Georgia manufacturer of silencers for firearms, sued Ian Hale Garner in Oregon over statements he posted on Internet chat rooms for gun enthusiasts.  Advanced Armament brought suit in federal court in May 2008 seeking damages and injunctive relief for defamation and interference with contractual relations. In particular, Advanced Armament sought to prevent Garner from "making, stating, or posting any defamatory statements," including but not limited to statements about its "products, designs, customer relationships, business plans and contracts." Compl. ¶ 4.

Garner moved to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that American Armament's claims arose out of written statements in a public forum concerning issues of public interest.  He argued that the chat rooms were public forums because "[i]n this case, anyone who is interested" in the topic "may in fact register and gain access," analogizing chat rooms to newspapers, magazines, and newsletters. Def.'s Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Strike at 3-4. Garner argued that his statements concerned an issue of public interest because the two chat rooms had "thousands of members each." Id. at 6. He also pointed out American Armament described itself as providing weapons to police departments and the U.S. government, making its activities a matter of public interest. Id. at 5.

American Armament countered that Garner was not speaking in the public interest when he made the statements because he had a relationship with one of its business competitors, which was also financing Garner's defense.  Pl.'s Supp. Brief in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. to Strike at 4.

The case proceeded to discovery before it was dismissed in April 2009 because the parties had reached a settlement.  

A group of developers sued Gregg B. Smith in Massachusetts state court over his operation of a website and distribution of a newsletter under the name "Save Cape Ann." Smith disputed the ownership of a parcel of land and the developers' right to develop the land. The developers brought suit in September 2006 seeking injunctive relief for defamation, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. In particular, the plaintiffs sought to prevent Smith from the "distribution of any publications, website, videos, or other means of communication, regarding these unfounded statements about Plaintiffs." (Compl. ¶ 78).

According to the complaint, the website contained "false, disparaging, and derogatory allegations about not only individual members of the Hoffman family, but also about the Kerr family. . . and about Reeb Millwork Corporation." (Compl. ¶ 32).  The allegedly defamatory statements included:

• "Plaintiffs are continueing [sic] the crimes after two of the resident homes were illegally acquired. . ." (Compl. ¶ 33)
• "Tide Rock Developer and former Math professor . . . is a child preditor [sic]. For over 15 years he prayed [sic] on his students giving them illegal drugs." (Compl. ¶ 34).

The plaintiffs also accused Smith of making false and defamatory statements in letters sent to the plaintiffs and their employees.

The Massachusetts state court issued a prelminary injunction in October 2006, prohibiting Smith from (1) making certain defamatory remarks concerning the plaintiffs; (2) contacting the plaintiffs; (3) contacting employees, customers, or affiliates of certain plaintiffs; and (4) coming within 25 feet of "the Stone House." The court specifically ordered Smith not to publish statements claiming that the plaintiffs hired "crooked lawyers" to further their development activities or that they "illegally acquired property, have illegally destroyed homes or property of others, have interfered with the property of others in retaliation for opposition to real estate development activities, and/or otherwise engaged in 'real estate crimes.'"

In March 2007, the court issued a further order expanding the scope of the injunction to prohibit Smith from (1) "publishing any statement accusing any of the Plaintiffs of illegal activity unless and until such illegal activity is actually found and adjudicated"; and (2) "soliciting others to violate the injunction."  In June 2008, the court deleted provisions of the injunction relating to contacting employees and making generalized allegations of criminal activity.

In August 2008, after a trial, a jury returned a verdict for several of the plaintiffs on the defamation count and for one plaintiff on the intentional infliction of emotional distress count, but the jury awarded no damages for these two counts.  (The jury awarded Katherine Hoffman Sen and Scott Kerr $900 for trespass on land, but this was unrelated to Smith's publishing activities.) 

After the jury verdict, the plaintiffs moved the court for entry of judgment, including a permanent injunction prohibiting Smith from making specified defamatory statements about them. In January 2009, the court ruled that it would issue an order enjoining Smith from "publishing the statements which, based upon the evidence, . . . have been the statement or statements the jury found to be defamatory of certain of the plaintiffs."

During a sex discrimination lawsuit brought against Coweta County, Georgia by former county official Leigh Schlumper, the county subpoenaed Sarah Faye-Campbell, a reporter for The Newnan Times-Herald. 

According to an article in the Times-Herald, the subpoena asked Faye-Campell "to name the anonymous source that provided her with copies of letters written by disgruntled firefighters" that were at issue in the discrimination lawsuit. The Times-Herald objected to the subpoena on the ground that Georgia's shield law protected the source's identity, and Coweta County agreed to suspend the subpoena pending further developments in the case.

Ultimately, the parties to the discrimination lawsuit stipulated to dismissal of the case, making the subpoena issue moot. 

After Jarkoff posted an entry about the security risks he sees with the login mechanism of the Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) website on his blog, TechMiso, he received an e-mail from the RSA Anti Fraud Command Centre.  RSA Security Inc. is  an encryption and network security company, and the RSA Anti Fraud Command Centre helps the NFCU with online fraud prevention.

The RSA email claimed that Jarkoff's post infringed on NFCU's copyright and trademark rights, and it expressed concern that Jarkoff's site could become a host of phishing attacks against NFCU's clients. The email then proceeded to ask for various kinds of information from Jarkoff, including the tar/zip file of the site's source code. After Jarkoff replied to the email, clarifying the purpose of his post and maintaining that there was no fraudulent activity involved, RSA replied that Jarkoff's post may confuse NFCU's customers and stating that NFCU had asked RSA to take down Jarkoff's blog.

A month later, Jarkoff received an email from Rackspace, his web host, regarding a trademark infringement complaint it received from RSA. Jarkoff replied to the email from Rackspace, explaining that there was no trademark infringement. Soon afterwards, Jarkoff received another email from Rackspace letting him know that RSA had requested that Rackspace disregard the shut down request.

The plaintiffs, Drs. Nevyas and Nevyas-Wallace and Nevyas Eye Associates, brought suit in federal court in 2004 for damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Lanham Act, defamation, and breach of contract for statements about their LASIK eye surgery practice posted by a former patient on a website.

Dr. Nevyas-Wallace performed elective LASIK eye surgery on the defendant Dominic Morgan in 1998. Displeased with the results, Morgan created a website that "intentionally and maliciously defamed Dr. Nevyas and Dr. Nevyas-Wallace" at that time or soon after, according to the complaint. (Compl. ¶ 18).

The federal Lanham Act claim was based on what the plaintiffs claimed were false or misleading statements posted on defendant's website. (Compl. ¶ 88). They also sued Steven Friedman, an attorney who represented Morgan in previous cases, for allegedly writing defamatory letters to the FDA which were later posted on the complained-of website. (Compl. ¶¶ 60-67). The plaintiffs argued that these statements were "material to the purchasing decisions" and "intended to deceive potential and current patients." (Compl. ¶¶ 89-90).

The federal district court dismissed the Lanham Act claim because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a false advertising claim and because Morgan's statements did not qualify as "commercial advertising or promotion." After the court dismissed the federal claim, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of defamation and breach of contract. Nevyas v. Morgan, 309 F. Supp.2d 673, 680 (E.D. Pa. 2004).

Related case in state court: Nevyas v. Morgan (state lawsuit)

The plaintiffs, Nevyas, Nevyas-Wallace, and Nevyas Eye Associates, brought suit in November 2003 for damages and injunctive relief for defamation and breach of contract for statements about their LASIK eye surgery practice posted online by a former patient, Dominic Morgan. A motion for temporary restraining order was denied in 2003 by the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia County, and the plaintiffs subsequently also brought suit in federal court when the defendant made further additions to his website. The federal claims were dismissed in 2004. The state court claims proceeded to trial in July 2005, and the trial court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.  On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the injunction in March 2007 and remanded the case to the trial court for futher proceedings. 

Dr. Nevyas-Wallace performed elective LASIK eye surgery on the defendant Dominic Morgan in 1998. Displeased with the results, Morgan commenced a medical malpractice action against Nevyas-Wallace, Nevyas, and the clinic, Nevyas Eye Associates. Ultimately, the dispute was resolved through arbitration. According to the complaint, Morgan created a website that contained numerous defamatory statements. (Compl. ¶ 17).  The plaintiffs contend that they entered into an agreement with Morgan in August 2003 in which Morgan agreed to remove all defamatory material and references to the plaintiffs from the website, and in return the plaintiffs would forego filing suit against him. (Compl. ¶ 20) In November 2003, the plaintiffs discovered a reconstructed website containing what they contend were defamatory statements. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).

The plaintiffs filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on November 10, 2003, but the motions were denied on November 18, 2003. The case proceeded to a non-jury trial limited to specific performance of the contract on July 26, 2005. The trial court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs on October 19, 2005, forbidding Morgan from mentioning the Nevyases at all on his website.

On appeal, the court found that Morgan did not waive his right to make critical statements in the future and he had specifically reserved the right to update his website. Thus, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the order granting the injunction and remanded the case to trial court for determination of whether the statements were defamatory and whether the statements posted in November were the same as the statements posted in July 2003. Nevyas v. Morgan, 2007 PA Super. 66.

Related case in federal court: CMLP: Nevyas v. Morgan II (federal lawsuit).

In August and September of 2009, MonaVie LLC sent two cease-and-desist letters to Lazy Man and Money, a personal finance blog authored by Corey Whitlaw.  MonaVie produces, markets and distributes "MonaVie" juices, açai berry drinks that are rich in antioxidants. MonaVie promotes its products as delivering "powerful antioxidants and phytonutrients to help fight free radicals and maintain your body's overall health."

The first letter related to an April 16th, 2008 blog post, titled "MonaVie a Scam?".  In the post, Whitlaw critiqued the juice as being expensive and questioned the efficacy of the company's network marketing strategy. MonaVie's name appears in the URL of the blog post — http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/monavie-scam-was-my-wife-recruited-sell-snake-oil/ — and is mentioned in the text, alongside a photograph of a bottle's nutrition information.  MonaVie's letter claimed that the post infringed on MonaVie's federally registered trademark and trade name. The letter explained that MonaVie "does not permit its name to be used in any URL or email address."  The letter requested that Lazy Man and Money stop using the mark. 

Whitlaw did not comply with MonaVie's request. He posted and discussed the letter on his blog on August 28, 2009.

On September 11, 2009 The Consumerist spoke with Doug Whitehead, MonaVie's General Counsel, who said that MonaVie's concerns are not with "user-visible content on the Lazy Man site," but instead with "the site's metadata, which includes MonaVie's name." 

MonaVie then sent a second cease-and-desist letter to Whitlaw, claiming that Lazy Man and Money had infringed on MonaVie's trademark by using "MonaVie" in the blog's metatags:

<meta name="keywords" content="lending club,portfolio,alternative income,blogging,football,patriots,chase,credit cards,rewards programs,lay-offs,monavie,ted kennedy,law suit,trademark infringement,spreadsheets,budget planning,envelope system,jar system" />

<meta name="description" content="Is MonaVie a Scam? Hundreds of people weigh in on MonaVie, MonaVie's business model, and whether you should buy MonaVie." /><meta name="keywords" content="monavie, mona vie, monavie scam, mona vie scam, monavie juice, acai, acai scam,acai,acai scam,mona vie,mona vie scam,monavie scam" />

That day, Whitlaw used his blog to respond to the letter, explaining why metatag keywords and descriptions do not affect ones ranking in search results.  He also distinguished his use of MonaVie's trademark from the facts of cases where trademark infringement was found.  

As of September 28, 2009, MonaVie has not pursued the matter further.