Darrell Baylor, an Indiana insurance agent, sued two anonymous defendants who allegedly defamed him in on the Hey Martha forum, a cross-platform forum hosted by local newspaper The Herald Bulletin and other websites. Baylor alleged that forum users "Jack Deth" and "Brent Leroy" accused him of drinking alcohol, whereas he claims it is "a well known public fact that the Plaintiff has not had any type or form of alcoholic beverage since 1994."

Baylor subpoenaed The Herald Bulletin and its parent company Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., seeking the identities of the posters.  According to a Bulletin report, the paper filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the ground that it did not own or operate the forum and did not have the requested information. The paper also argued that the subpoena was invalid because it was overbroad and possibly violated the posters' privacy rights.

At a court hearing, the judge ordered the Bulletin to tell Baylor who had responsibility for the forum so that Baylor could serve a subpoena on that party.  Lawyers for the Bulletin identified Seattle-based Groupee Inc. as the operator of the forum. The Bulletin's lawyers also argued that the court should appoint counsel to represent the anonymous posters in defending their right to remain anonymous.  

Sebastian D'Elia, director of the Office of Public Information of Union County, New Jersey, filed a lawsuit against two members of The Union County Watchdog Association after they allegedly defamed him in blog posts. Defendants Tina Renna and Patricia Quattrocchi were regular posters to the watchdog group's blog, The County Watchers. According to news reports, D'Elia took issue with a blog post titled "County Hacks are Soulless Pyschopaths," which allegedly compared him to Adolf Hitler.

Both D'Elia and the defendants moved for summary judgment in the case.  After hearing oral argument on the two motions, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that D'Elia had not provided sufficient proof of damages. The court reportedly also noted that D'Elia was a public official, which meant he was subject to criticism even if it was "mean-spirited," "unflattering," and "poorly written."

Hy Cite Corporation, a company that sells dinnerware and cookware under the trademarked name "Royal Prestige," sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in Arizona federal court for defamation, RICO violations, and other torts over reports published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.

Ripoff Report hosted 35 "rip-off" reports concerning Royal Prestige, which complained about Hy Cite's sales tactics, misleading promotional offers, the quality of its dinnerware and cookware, and its refusal to abide by the terms of its sale contracts.  The complaint alleged that these reports contained false, misleading, and defamatory statements.  The complaint further alleged that Ripoff Report itself partially created and/or developed this content by creating its own editorial comments and titles, producing original content contained in the rip-off reports, and soliciting individuals to submit reports in return for compensation. 

Hy Cite also alleged that Xcentric and Magedson violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by engaging in threatened extortion and wire fraud.  Specifically, Hy Cite claimed that Xcentric and Magedson created and solicited defamatory content and then offered to alter the content to portray the company in a good light in return for $50,000 and a $1,500 monthly retainer.  

Xcentric and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for publishing the statements of its users, and that Hy Cite failed to state a viable RICO, Lanham Act, or common law unfair competition claim. 

The district court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The court held that CDA 230 did not justify dismissal because Hy Cite had alleged that Xcentric and Magedson personally created defamatory content in editorial comments, titles, and in the rip-off reports themselves.  Slip op. at 8.  The court also indicated that Hy Cite's allegation that Ripoff Report solicited individuals to submit reports in return for compensation could support a finding that the website was responsible for the creation and development of information.  Id. (As Eric Goldman points out, this last conclusion is at odds with other case law.)

The district court treated Hy Cite's RICO claims as if they were outside of the protection of CDA 230 and held that Hy Cite adequately stated a claim based on the predicate acts of threatened extortion and wire fraud. Here, the court relied on Hy Cite's allegations that defendants created and solicited false and defamatory complaints against businesses and used these complaint to extort money from businesses through its mediation program. See id. at 10-12.

Finally, the district court dismissed Hy Cite's Lanham Act claims for false advertising, unfair competition, and disparagement, holding that the criticism of Hy Cite's business appearing on Ripoff Report was not competitive injury actionable under the Lanham Act.  Id. at 13-15. The court concluded, however, that Hy Cite's state law unfair competition claim survived because common law unfair competition is broader than the Lanham Act in imposing liability for a false and misleading misrepresentation that is likely to cause commercial harm.  Id. at 15.

The parties later settled the case.  The terms of the settlement are not public.

In July 2008, sex columnist Violet Blue requested a restraining order in San Francisco Superior Court against David "Ben" Burch and Nina Alter.  Blue claimed that Burch sent her a threatening email, that Alter published disparaging statements about her on Burch's blog Kicking Pebbles, and that both posted several disparaging statements about Blue on Boing Boing and her Wikipedia page.  The court denied Blue's request for a restraining order, finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof.

GW Equity, LLC, a mergers and acquisition firm that acts as a consultant to middle-market business owners who seek to sell or merge their businesses, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in Texas federal court for defamation and other torts over reports published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.

In its complaint, GW Equity alleged that Ripoff Report published false and defamatory reports submitted by users without verifying their accuracy. In an effort to circumvent the immunity for website operators provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), GW Equity further alleged that Xcentric and Magedson created, developed, and published defamatory titles, headings, and metatags for these reports concerning GW Equity. It also claimed that Ripoff Report generated defamatory content by providing users with drop-down boxes containing defamatory tags, such as "corrupt companies," which were applied by users to reports about GW Equity.

After completing discovery, Xcentric and Magedson moved for summary judgment. In October 2008, a federal magistrate judge issued his report on the motion, recommending that the district court grant Xcentric and Magedson's motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge found that Xcentric and Magedson were entitled to the protection of CDA 230 because GW Equity had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact concerning their development or creation of defamatory content. The court indicated that providing drop-down boxes with "a broad choice of categories from which a user must make a selection in order to submit a report [was] not sufficient" to deprive the defendants of immunity, especially because they "did not solely provide users with a selection of categories that were negative and/or defamatory in nature." Slip op. at 7, 10.

The magistrate judge also found that there was no competent evidence that any Ripoff Report employee ever wrote or significantly edited report titles and headings, or changed the category tag on a user report. See id. at 9-10. The magistrate relied in part on a report produced by Xcentric showing IP addresses and locations connected with the reports and rebuttals about GW Equity. This report showed the IP addresses of Ripoff Report servers and machines used by Ripoff Report staff, and noneof those IP addresses matched up with the IPs of a report or a rebuttal about GW Equity. See id. at 9.

Finally, the magistrate rejected GW Equity's argument that Ripoff Report's "Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Satisfaction Program" took the website outside of CDA 230. According to GW Equity, under this program Ripoff Report will, for a fee, investigate "rip-off" reports targeting member companies and post prominent rebuttals to those reports. The court indicated that "it is not a bar to immunity for an Internet provider to refuse to remove defamatory material created by a third party, or to otherwise use it to their advantage, even though the Internet provider’s conduct may be considered reprehensible and offensive." Id. at 12.

GW Equity has filed objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation, and the district court had not ruled on those objections as of November 14, 2008.

Update:

01/09/2009 - The district court affirmed the magistrate's report and recommendation and granted Xcentric and Magedson's motion for summary judgment.

A.H. Barnes, a California attorney who operates several businesses that help attorneys and other individuals find employment, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in California state court for defamation over reports published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.

Barnes alleges that anonymous users of Ripoff Report submitted false and defamatory reports claiming, among other things, that he was dishonest, that he was "cooking the books," and that he had engaged in a pattern of criminal activity including breaching the privacy of his customers, software piracy, data theft, and deliberately violating federal anti-SPAM laws and regulations. Cmplt. ¶¶ 15-17.

Barnes alleges that Ripoff Report and Magedson updated the title of the defamatory thread about him to include the statement "UPDATE Ex-Employee responds . . . SCAM, FRAUD and tons of SPAM." Id. ¶ 18. He alleges more generally that Ripoff Report "deliberately and intentionally alters the content of its purportedly anonymous third-party postings to enhance the salaciousness and magnitude of known defamatory content." Id. ¶ 8. The complaint maintains that Ripoff Report's manipulation of purported third-party content "demonstrates that Rip Off, Magedson, or both exercised at least some degree of control over Rip Off's content thus losing the right to avail themselves of the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act." Id. ¶ 18.

While the complaint only includes a defamation claim, Barnes also alleges that Ripoff Report and Magedson extort money from companies by offering them the opportunity to participate in a "corporate mediation program," in which the injured company pays Ripoff Report "to help mitigate the damages caused by the defamatory content" posted by users of the website. Id. ¶ 10. Finally, the complaint alleges that Ripoff Report uses "intensive search engine-based technologies" to get unusually high search engine rankings for defamatory content, apparently as part of its alleged scheme to put pressure on companies. See id. ¶ 9.

Susan Scheff, a self-described “parent advocate” who “assists parents of troubled teens research and identify programs and schools that can assist their troubled teens in getting back on track to a healthy, productive lifestyle” and the publisher of www.suescheff.com, filed an administrative complaint with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center against "Psyborgue" pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). (The UDRP is a policy that website operators automatically agree to when they register a domain name; the policy enables trademark owners to initiate an administrative proceeding challenging the registration of a domain name in "bad faith.") 

"Psyborgue" is the name Michael Crawford used to register the domain name "sueschefftruth.com."  Mr. Crawford, who represented himself in the WIPO action, stated in a declaration that he registered the domain name primarily to "provide information to the public regarding Sue Scheff, her company PURE, and the quality of services offered under the name free of charge to parents."  According to the WIPO administrative panel:

The website associated with the Domain Name posts Mr. Crawford’s blog comments, media articles, court documents, and postings by readers concerning [Sue Scheff]. Typical postings question [her] objectivity, assert that she or her daughter have financial ties to some of the institutions and programs that [she] recommends to parents, and allege that some of these programs have been implicated in charges of child abuse or neglect.  A disclaimer at the head of the website advises, “This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Sue Scheff™.

The WIPO panel denied Scheff's complaint, finding that Mr. Crawford was making a legitimate, nomcommercial fair use of the domain name for purposes of criticism.  The panel indicated that "[t]o the extent the Complaint may be read as suggesting that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith because his purpose was to defame the Complainant, such a claim is essentially outside the scope of the Policy."

Lawyer Edward T. Saadi brought a defamation lawsuit against Pierre Maroun -- Saadi's cousin -- and Hala Fakhre Maroun over statements they allegedly posted to blog biggestloosers.blogspot.com (defunct).  According to Saadi's complaint, the Marouns' blog postings accused him of engaging in various forms of criminal and unethical behavior.

Saadi filed his complaint against Pierre, Hala, and several John Doe defendants in Florida federal court. As the case progressed, Saadi filed amended complaints that extended Saadi's defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims to other forum and website postings. An article posted to Alccresearch.com (defunct) allegedly accused Saadi of being associated with terrorism and with Hezbollah.  Saadi also added Maroun's International, LLC as a defendant. 

Pierre, Hala, and Maroun's International filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the disputed statements were statements of opinion and that Saadi had not properly alleged that they had authored the statements. On September 9, 2008, the court denied their motion to dismiss the defamation claim, finding that "statements that Plaintiff is a mentally unstable stalker, a criminal, and that he has received gifts paid for with money stolen from the Lebanese governemnt, as well as statements that suggest that Plaintiff falsely purports to have a law degree and has committed statutory rape, imply factual knowledge."  Slip op. at 5.  The court emphasized that the Marouns combined these statements with claims that the information was the result of "thorough investigation" and  posted them on sites that proclaim "OUR STORIES ARE TRUE."  Id. at 5-6.  Accordingly, the court held that the statements "assert facts that reasonably can be construed as defamatory." Id. at 6. 

The court granted the motion to dismiss the infliction of emotional distress claim against Hala, but denied the motion with respect to Pierre and Maroun's International.  The court did, however, grant their request for a more definite statement with respect to this claim. On September 22, Saadi filed his third amended complaint.

Update:

01/19/2009 -  Saadi voluntarily dismissed Hala Fakhre from the lawsuit.

03/02/2009 - Pierre Maroun filed a motion for summary judgment.

10/01/2009 - After completion of the trial, the court dismissed the claims against Maroun International. With respect to Pierre Maroun, the jury returned a verdict for Saadi, awarding $90,000 in damages. 

11/02/09 - The court granted in part and denied in part Saadi's motion for a permanent injunction.  The court ordered Maroun to "remove all references to Edward T. Saadi from the internet postings that are reflected in Trial Exhibits 19 and 2o" and "enjoined [him] from republishing in any manner any statement that Edward T. Saadi is a terrorist."  Otherwise, the court denied the motion.

02/05/10 - The court upheld the magistrate judge's ruling rejecting Saadi's motion asking the court to direct an assignment of Maroun's interest in a limited liability corporation, Maroun's International, LLC.  The magistrate found, and the court agreed, that the assignment would not bring Saadi any relief and was thus "futile and would waste the Court's resources."

Donna Fell is being sued for posting a rating on LawyerRatingz.com and also for posting a thread on Fairfax Underground about her experience with a law firm and lawyer. Three lawsuits are still pending in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia.

(Portion above submitted by Guest.)

Medinah Mining Company ("Medinah"), a Nevada corporation, and Les Price, a Canadian citizen and officer and director of Medinah, sued sixteen individual defendants from Chile, Canada, and several U.S. states, alleging that they defamed Medinah and Price over the Internet, including on the Raging Bull forum. The complaint failed to identify the specific allegedly defamatory statements, saying only that the defendants' comments related to the integrity and business ethics of Medinah and Price.  Besides defamation, the complaint included ten related claims, including for tortious interference, outrage, and fraud.  

Several defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds, including failure to serve process and lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court dismissed one defendant, James Ingram, for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Ingram was a resident of Arkansas, who had never been to Nevada or done business there. The court held that Ingram's postings on the Internet were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over him to a Nevada court.  The court ultimately dismissed the entire case for failure to prosecute.