Linda Stengle was a special education due process hearing officer from July 1998 through June 2006, working for the Pennsylvania Office of Dispute Resolution on consecutive one-year contracts.  In June 2006, her contract was not renewed because of her blogging activity.  On her blog, Stengle discussed issues surrounding children with disabilities and apparently sometimes touched upon the topics of her hearings. 

Stengle subsequently filed a lawsuit against several Pennsylvania agencies and officials claiming that they violated her First Amendment rights by choosing not to reappoint her as a hearing officer because of her blogging. The court ultimately dismissed Stengle's First Amendment claims, finding that the government's interest in ensuring an impartial dispute resolution system outweighed Stengle's First Amendment interest.

Jane Doe, an anonymous blogger and author of the website Pogo Was Right: Privacy News from Around the World, filed suit in the Central District of California against Lillian Glass, Ph.D. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) Doe is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from liability for postings made by anonymous third parties in the website's forums, and (2) that certain comments made by Doe on the blog do not defame Dr. Glass.

The case arises from a series of posts by Doe on the Pogo Was Right website relating to the mental health problems experienced by Britney Spears and the resulting media coverage. Dr. Glass, a "body language expert," had appeared on CNN's Showbiz Tonight and on CNN's Primetime Live with Erica Hill to discuss Ms. Spears' behavior and to offer a potential diagnosis of Ms. Spears as suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. In response, Doe authored a series of posts criticizing Dr. Glass' comments and raising concerns about Ms. Spears' privacy and patient confidentiality.

On June 18, 2009, an attorney for Dr. Glass wrote to Doe, asserting that certain comments by Doe and an anonymous forum poster "violated the privacy rights and other rights" of Dr. Glass; were "false and defamatory in nature, and [were] designed to embarrass and hold my client up to ridicule"; and "incited persons with such propensities and have called for Dr. Glass' death." (The latter in reference to the following from one of Doe's posts:  "'Dr. Phil' catches some flak and dishes some out A complaint filed about Dr. Phil -- but is it wellfounded? People who live in Glass psychology houses shouldn't throw stones. They should be stoned. Dr.
Lillian Glass backpedals, but is it too little, too late?") The letter demanded that Doe remove all references to Dr. Glass from her posts.

Dr. Glass' attorney subsequently sent an email once again threatening to sue if Doe did not remove the references to Dr. Glass from the webiste. The email also stated: "I should also mention to you that if a suit is filed against you, then there will be a public record of your identity and of your capacity as the blogger of this 'pogowasright.org' and other websites. Since you have gone to such great lengths to hide your identity improperly, I think this should also be a concern of yours." Doe filed the complaint for a declaratory judgment ten days after receipt of this email.

Sedgwick, a company that provides insurance claims management services, sued Robert Delsman, a former employee of one of Sedgwick's clients, for copyright infringement, defamation, and other torts, after he created gripe sites, blogs, videos and print materials criticizing the company. Delsman's beef with the company started after he filed a claim for disability benefits in 2006.  According to the complaint, Delsman was unhappy with the way in which Sedgwick handled his claims, and began a campaign of harassment which allegedly included:

• Hosting pictures of Sedgwick's CEO and COO on his website and blog, which "morph[ed] . . . into images of Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himmler," and posting a similar video to YouTube
• Referring to Sedgwick and its employees as "Sedgthugs"
• Unjustly accusing Sedgwick of engaging in criminal behavior on his website and in emails
• "Operation Going Postcard," in which Delsman sent postcards to Sedgwick offices, employees, customers and outside insurance agencies in multiple states.  These postcards allegedly contained copyrighted images of Sedgwick's CEO and COO and an image of a human skull containing Sedgwick's trademark in the eye sockets, along with "defamatory, false and libelous statements against Sedgwick.

(Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.)  Sedgwick sought damages, fees, and an injunction preventing Delsman from sending offensive emails or postcards and further defaming or libeling Sedgwick, and requiring him to remove all of Sedgwick's copyrighted material from his website and blog and to destroy all Sedgwick's copyrighted material in his possession.

Delsman, who is representing himself pro se, has filed a motion for summary judgment.  The court has yet to rule on his motion.

UPDATE:

07/17/2009- The court construed Delsman's motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss and granted the motion.  The court held that the copyright claim failed because Delsman's use of Sedgwick photographs was fair use.  The court dismissed the remaining claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

12/16/2009- Sedgwick filed its opening brief on appeal.

01/29/2010 - Delsman filed its response brief.

03/01/2010 - Sedgwick filed its reply brief.

03/21/2011 - In an unpublished, two-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.

Grijalva and Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES), a website which reports fraud and abuse committed against foreign exchange students, filed a lawsuit against ASSE International, Inc. (ASSE); Helga Brandt; and Josef Motycka, claiming defamation and unfair business practices for allegedly sending emails critical of CSFES to the parents of foreign exchange students.

Plantiffs alleged in their complaint that "ASSE . . . set out to malign CSFES  and . . . Grijalva with an intentional and false campaign directed to the parents of students. . . ." Opinion at 4. Grijalva asserted that in its email campaign againts her, ASSE falsely accused her of the following:

• "conducting her website and agency with a 'commercial purpose'"
• "'manipulating facts'"
• "'not portraying a clear picture'"
• "'isn't interested in the welfare of the students'"
• "'threatening' to send information on exchange agencies but 'if got [sic] a contribution doesn't send anything,'"
• "'represent[ing] herself as a federal agent,'"
• "'performs background checks,'"
• "[b]eing a 'liar,'" and
• "[m]aking 'false statements'[.]'"

Id. 

ASSE and Brandt filed an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to dismiss the complaint. In the motion, ASSE and Brandt claimed that plaintiffs' lawsuit was filed in retaliation for ASSE's participating in a separate lawsuit against Grijalva then pending in North Carolina. The trial judge granted defendants' motion. Plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court reversed the trial judge's ruling and remanded the case to San Diego Superior Court. 

The grounds for reversal was that ASSE's and Brandt's allegations that plaintiffs filed the lawsuit a "mere one month" after ASSE intervened in the North Carolina suit was not sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiffs' claims arose from ASSE's participation in the suit.  The court further found that ASSE's and Brandt's claim that the lawsuit was filed in retaliation for ASSE's participation in the North Carolina suit was irrelevant to application of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that a complaint filed with a retaliatory motive was not barred by the anti-SLAPP statute, so long as the claims in the complaint arose from statements or conduct independent of ASSE's participation in the North Carolina litigation.  

Aleksandra Vinogradov, a professor at Montana State University, subpoenaed the Bozeman Daily Chronicle for information concerning comments made on the Chronicle's website in connection with two articles published in March and April 2009 regarding the trial in Vinogradov's gender discrimination suit against her employer, Montana State University.

Vinogradov sought this information to support a request for a new trial in her discrimination lawsuit against MSU, which ended in a jury verdict against her in April 2009. Her attorneys argued that one of the commenters to the April 2009 article who posted under the pseudonym “mbcomstock” was Brandon Comstock, one of the jurors in the case. The comment in question read: "Note that this was the third time this same woman has sued the university for discrimination, and her third loss. Maybe, just maybe, instead of everybody else being conspiring liars hiding a ‘big dirty secret,’ the problem is really her." In a May 2009 hearing, Comstock testified that he was not the author of the comment, but acknowledged that his father might have written it.

Vinogradov claimed this post proved the jury was improperly informed of her prior suits against MSU. She moved for a new trial based on jury misconduct and served a subpoena on the newspaper requesting that the Chronicle turn over:

"1) copies of all postings made to the Chronicle's website or blog relating to the two articles; 2) the names and identities off [sic] persons and organizations that posted such comments; 3) the IP addresses associated with each comment posted; 4) the IP addresses associated with each viewer of the two articles during the period of March 23, 2009 to April 3, 2009; 5) all computer logs generated in connection with the two articles; and 6) any and all e-mail communications and other written communications that the Chronicle and its website, its agents and its employees have received or sent on or after March 23, 2009 relating to the two articles." 

On June 3, 2009, the Chronicle opposed Vinogradov's motions, arguing that the information and documents she sought "are protected under Montana's Media Confidentiality Act, specifically  26-1-902, MCA." Ruling at 3. The next day, MSU also opposed Vinogradov's motion to perpetuate, arguing that "the information she seeks is not relevant to the jury misconduct issue" and therefore did not satisfy procedural requirements. Id. 

On June 5, 2009, the court denied Vinogradov's motion to perpetuate testimony pending appeal on procedural grounds. The court did not address the newspaper's shield law argument or rule on its motion to quash the subpoena.  Later in June, the court denied Vinogradov's motion for a new trial. 

Vinogradov reportedly will appeal this result. 

The Guardian Civic League has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 2,300 black Philadelphia police officers against the Philadelphia Police Department for allegedly allowing its officers to post racist and offensive content on Domelights.com, a website focused on law enforcement. 

Guardian's three-count complaint claims that the Philadelphia Police Department engaged in the creation of a hostile work environment on the basis of race (42 U.S.C. § 1983), discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 1981), and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985) when white officers, Does 1-10,000, posted racist content to the forum site.  

Guardian alleges that "an Active Duty Philadelphia Police Sergent" with the username 'McQ' founded and operated . . . . [t]he racially offensive website." Compl. ¶ 3. Guardian attached screenshots of various posts from Domelights.com, reading "Guns Don’t Kill People. Dangerous Minorites Do. How much longer can you ignore this?" and "adults can't speak proper English or spell at a 3rd grade level, but they can sing among 'theyselves' to lyrics of a rap song." Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7.  Guardian asserts that these "offensive postings . . .  are part of the intentional purpose of the creator of Domelights.com Sgt. 'McQ.'" Compl. ¶ 8.

Guardian asserts that "White police officers use Domelights.com at work, in front of African American Police Officers, and discuss the contents of this racist website, make jokes about it. "Compl. ¶ 5. Also, Guardian argues that the Police Department is aware of the website but although "African American Police Officers have complained to the Philadelphia Police Department regarding Domelights.com,  . . . no actions have been taken to restrict this website or to discipline those police officers responsible for its racially offensive and legally violative content." Compl. ¶ 48.

Guardian seeks a ban on "the operation and use of Domelights.com by Philadelphia Police Officers" as well as compensatory and punitive damges.  Compl. ¶ 10.

The Philadelphia police have not yet filed an answer to the complaint. 

Michelle Langlois, whose brother is embroiled in a pending child custody case with his ex-wife, posted information and commentary about her brother's case to her Facebook account.  Tracey Martin, the ex-wife, filed a "domestic abuse" petition in Kent County Family Court against Langlois, claiming that her posts constituted "harassment" and a "mental assault" on Martin and her children. 

Family Court Judge Michael Forte, who presided over Martin's petition, issued an order restraining Langlois from "posting details about the children and the pending Family Court proceedings on the Internet."  After this order was issued, the Rhode Island ACLU intervened in the case on Langlois' behalf.   The ACLU filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court's order was an unconstitutional violation of Langlois' First Amendment rights, and that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to issue the order. 

On July 28, 2009, a day before the court was scheduled to hold a hearing on the motion, Martin voluntarily dismissed her complaint.  This had the effect of rescinding the court's initial restraining order.

Edward Gannon, a pilot with US Airways, filed a lawsuit against Paula Walker, Sue Burris, and Brian Shunick, three airline attendants, claiming that they defamed him by reporting Gannon's willingness to take-off in an airplane with iced wings to the Federal Aviation Administration. Subsequently, Gannon filed a motion to amend his complaint to add new defamation claims and a false light claim based on the defendants' contributions to an article published in the Phoenix New Times, in which they "repeated their earlier false and defamatory statements." (Amend. Compl. ¶ 4.) He also alleged that the defendants were "endeavoring to disseminate their misleading diatribe" by creating a blog with a story on the lawsuit at www.helpflightattendantcrew.blogspot.com. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 5.) Gannon argued that the story "while technically accurate, nevertheless is actionable under a false light invasion of privacy action."(Id.)

In February 2009, an Arizona state court denied Gannon's motion to amend, finding that his "defamation claims would be futile" and granted Walker's motion for summary judgment on laches, qualified privilege, and the veracity of Walker's claims. (Opinion at p. 3.) In March 2009, Gannon filed a "motion for new trial on court's summary judgment ruling" and a motion for reconsideration of the denial of leave to amend. 

Los Angeles photographer Zoe Wiseman has filed suit in California state court against twenty-five anonymous individuals associated with WeHireAliens.com, alleging they falsely stated that she illegally hires models without work visas and pays them in cash. The website allows users to report "suspected employers of illegal aliens." The disputed post names three British models allegedly hired without work visas by Wiseman for a photo shoot at a hotel in California. Other users' replies to the original post claim it was written by someone with a "personal vendetta" against Wiseman.  

The complaint, filed in March 2009, states claims for defamation and negligence. A case management conference is scheduled for July 27, 2009. 

Horizon Realty Group, an apartment leasing and management company in Chicago, filed a defamation lawsuit last week against a former tenant, Amanda Bonnen, over a tweet she posted about the company on Twitter.  According to the complaint, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, Bonnen posted the following tweet on May 12, 2009: 

@JessB123 You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you?  Horizon realty thinks it's ok.

According to Chicago Bar-Tender, Bonnen had just 20 followers before her account disappeared from Twitter.  Nevertheless, Horizon claims that, as a result of the post, the company "has been greatly injured in its reputation as a landlord in Chicago."

Update:

1/20/09 - The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, according to press accounts.