Skutt Catholic High School sued anonymous Wikipedia posters over critical edits posted to the school's Wikipedia page in 2006. The posts criticized the quality of education at the school and its high tuition, used vulgar language, and referenced student drug use. After filing suit, the school subpoenaed Cox Communications, the ISP for the IP addresses used to make the postings. A spokesman from Cox Communications told the Student Press Law Center that the company would comply with the subpoena "unless there are further developments in the case, which quashes that order." The CMLP has been unable to determine whether Cox Communications ultimately complied and what ultimately happened in the underlying lawsuit.

In 1999, Brett Bezzant, then-owner of the American Fork Citizen New Utah!, a local newspaper, published a political advertisement prepared and paid for by Bill Jacob, which claimed that an American Fork City ordinance barred two men from running for City Council, despite a legal opinion from the city's attorneys that said otherwise. Jacob's name was not on the flier. After the two candidates complained to Bezzant, he paid for and published an "Urgent Election Notice" that apologized to the two men, named Jacob as the author of the political advertisement, and called it a "classic example of negative campaigning." Bezzant distributed the notice by mail to American Fork residents and posted it on the newspaper's website.

Jacob filed a lawsuit against Bezzant, claiming the notice contained defamatory language and portrayed him in a false light. Bezzant filed a counterclaim under Utah's Citizen Participation in Government Act, also known as the Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Act.  The trial court dismissed Jacob's defamation claims and granted Bezzant attorney's fees under the Anti-SLAPP Act and a federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)).

On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held in a June 2009 opinion that dismissal of Jacob's defamation suit and awarding of attorney's fees was inappropriate under the Anti-SLAPP Act because Bezzant's election notice was not "participati[on] in the process of government."  Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1403(1) (2008).  However, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the defamation suit as lacking legal merit and the award of partial attorney's fees under the civil rights statute.  The court declined to address the issue, raised by Jacobs for the first time on appeal, of whether Utah's Anti-SLAPP Act is unconstitutional under the Utah Constitution.

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 news reports, 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. 

The owner of a Connecticut coffee shop sued two former employees in federal court, asserting that they violated federal and state law when they allegedly converted the coffee shop's website into a forum to launch verbal attacks on the store and its owner. In his complaint, John A. Blazi, the owner of Greenwich Coffee, LLC, accused Jason Wagoner and Nicolas DeGrazia of trademark infringement, violating state and federal unfair competition laws, false representation, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and conspiracy.

In the complaint, Blazi accused the defendants of using GreenwichCoffee.com, the coffee shop's former website, as a "web-based campaign of discrediting the store" in hopes of running it out of business. Compl. ¶ 17. The domain name, although initially used for official Greenwich Coffee business, was registered solely in Wagoner's name without Blazi's permission, according to the complaint. Compl. ¶ 12. 

The defendants denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff had filed an almost identical suit in Connecticut state court. The plaintiff objected to the motion on the grounds that Blazi was not the plaintiff in the state lawsuit, the state complaint named an additional defendant, and the federal claims were not included in the state suit.  The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the motion to dismiss the federal suit Feb. 4, 2009. The court stated its main reasons for its ruling were the presence of identical underlying facts in both cases, the state court's ability to apply federal law to the other lawsuit, and inconvenience to the defendants.

Greenwich Coffee, LLC v. DeGrazia, the suit in state court, has yet to be resolved, according to the Connecticut Judicial Branch's website.

Marianne Bihari, an interior designer, and her company Bihari Interiors Inc. brought a lawsuit against Craig Gross, a former customer of Bihari, and Yolanda Truglio for federal unfair competition, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, common law unfair competition, libel, and tortious intereference with contract. Bihari sought to enjoin Gross and Truglio from using the marks or meta-tags "Bihari" and "Bihari Interiors" in websites critical of Bihari and Bihari Interiors Inc.

In her six-count complaint, Bihari alleges that Gross, after a failed settlement conference arising from a previous business dealing with Bihari, registered the web addresses "bihari.com" and "bihariinteriors.com." Compl. ¶ 31. Bihari asserts that Truglio sent her a facsimile announcing that "the web site 'www.bihairinteriors' was currently under construction" to ensure that Bihari "knew of the harm Gross was willing and able to inflict." Compl. ¶¶ 32-35. Bihari claims that Gross later registered "designscam.com" and "manhattaninteriordesign.com," each of which had identical content to "bihari.com" and used meta-tags "bihari" and "bihari interiors." Compl. ¶¶ 66-68.

These sites purport to "protect you from experiencing the overwhelming grief and aggravation in dealing with someone that allegedly only has intentions to defraud." Compl. ¶ 79.a. Each site has a large animated banner reading “Do not fall prey to Marianne Bihari or Bihari Interiors” and links to "the scam." Compl. ¶¶ 78, 80. Bihari believes that Gross designed these sites to spread "misleading and defamatory information about [Bihari Interiors] and thereby harm [its] reputation and goodwill." Compl. ¶ 65.

The court denied Bihari's request for an injunction. The court held that Gross' conduct did not violate the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act because by the time of the decision, "Gross ha[d] abandoned [bihari.com and bihariinteriors.com] and promised to transfer the domain names back."  The court also held that Bihari would not succeed in her claims of trademark infringement because she could not show that Gross' conduct was "likely to cause confusion . . . as to the affliation . . . or approval of" the defendant's goods or services. The court reasoned that Gross' use of the "Bihari Interiors" mark in meta-tags for designscam.com and manhattaninteriors.com would not cause consumer confusion since "[n]o reasonable viewer would believe that the disparaging comments regarding Bihari's business ethics . . . are endorsed by Bihari." Secondly, the court held that even if Gross' use of the mark in meta-tags caused confusion, the use would be protected under fair use, as they were "descriptive" and " used . . . in good faith." 

After the denial of an injunction, the parties held a pretrial conference on 12/04/2000. It appears that the parties settled the matter, as the court signed an order of discontinuance with prejudice on 12/06/2000. 

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's website. 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 & Observer reports 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.

Compl. ¶ 50. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing Media Visions was immune from liability for user comments under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230).  The plaintiffs then withdrew their claims for trade libel and tortious interference with contract. They also filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing that the defendants were not immune under Section 230 because the defendants themselves posted defamatory comments. 

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.

The parties stipulated to dismissal of the complaint with prejudice in February 2009, apparently due to a settlement.

On March 30, 2009, Detective Kevin Christopher of the Boston College Police Department applied for a search warrant to seize computers, computer equipment, and digital storage devices belonging to Riccardo Calixte, a Boston College (BC) computer science major and employee of BC’s IT department.  Christopher asserted that there was probable cause to believe that these items had been used in, or were evidence of, criminal activity, to wit obtaining computer services by fraud or misrepresentation and unauthorized access to a computer system.  (Warrant Aff. ¶ 1, 4h.)  Probable cause was based upon allegations of one of Calixte’s ex-roommates, with whom he was having domestic issues at the time, that Calixte:

• Is considered a “master of the [computer science] trade” and has a “reputation as a ‘hacker’”;
• Often appears with “unknown laptops which [Calixte] says are given to him by Boston College for field testing or he is ‘fixing’ for other students”;
• “[U]ses two different operating systems to hide his illegal activities,” one of which was described as “a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on”;
• Has “hack[ed] into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for students”;
• Has “‘fixed’ computers so that they cannot be scanned by any system for detection of illegal downloads and illegal internet use”;
• “‘Jail breaks’ cell phones”;
• Has “a cache of approximately 200+ illegally downloaded movies as well as music from the internet”; and
• Has “personally implicated himself in illegal activity to [his ex-roommate] on previous occasions.”

(Warrant Aff. ¶ 4b.)  The search warrant application also alleges that Calixte was the author of a mass email to the BC community that stated that his ex-roommate is gay, and included a link to a profile on adam4adam.com, a gay-oriented website, created in his ex-roommate’s name.  (Warrant Aff. ¶ 4d–4f.)

The search warrant was granted and Calixte’s iPods, cell phones, computers, external hard drives, and other digital equipment were seized.  In response, Calixte filed a motion to quash the warrant and for the return of his property, claiming that the search was illegal due to lack of probable cause, based on the fact that none of his alleged conduct constituted criminal activity and that the witness was unreliable.  (Calixte Mem. 6–8, 10, 13–14.)  In their opposition memo, the police stated that Calixte's use of the BC computer system to send a mass email "outing" his ex-roommate and create a "fraudulent profile" on adam4adam.com constituted access for "unauthorized uses" in violation of Massachusetts law.  (Opp'n Mem. 4–6.)  On April 22, 2009, First Justice Dyanne J. Klein of the Newton District Court denied Calixte’s motion, noting that the alleged unauthorized access to the BC grading system to change students’ grades constituted a crime, although the suspected “outing” of his ex-roommate via email over the BC list server did not.  (Trial Ct. Order 1–2.)

On May 21, 2009, in response to Calixte’s appeal, Justice Margot Botsford of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the Newton District Court’s decision and ordered that “all ongoing forensic analysis of the items seized from Calixte must cease . . . and all items must be returned forthwith.”  Justice Botsford ruled that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause, citing the “troublingly weak evidence of . . . [the ex-roommate’s] reliability” and an insufficient nexus between the items seized and evidence relating to the allegation of unauthorized access.  Finally, she noted that sending an email "outing" another student would not constitute a criminal offense, even if it violated a BC internet use policy.  (Sup. Jud. Ct. Order 6, 9–10.)