Production company Vision Media TV (VMT) sued blogger Leslie Richard after she accused the company of scamming small businesses in her blog and on an Internet forum. VMT's complaint asked for $20 million in damages, alleging claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, and trade libel.

Richard, owner of "green" fashion company The Oko Box, criticized VMT in the The Oko Box blog and Co-OP America's Green Business Network Lounge. According to the complaint, Richard's posts said that VMT representatives had offered to interview her for an educational television program on eco-fashion. Richard said the representatives claimed the program was part of an evironmental series featuring former "20/20" anchor Hugh Downs. After further discussions, VMT asked Richard to pay VMT $22,900 in production costs and $3,000 for airfare in order to appear on the program. Richard then allegedly wrote postings on her blog and Co-Op America calling VMT a scam and accusing it of taking advantage of small businesses. Richard also reported VMT to the Better Business Bureau.

VMT filed suit in a Florida federal court in July 2008. Richard, a North Carolina citizen, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion also sought, in the alternative, to transfer the case to federal court in North Carolina. Richard argued that the Florida court's exercise of jurisdiction over her would violate standards of "fair play and substantial justice" because Richard could not afford to appear in a Florida court and could not travel in any case because of a medical condition. Richard filed an affadavit from her doctor stating that she was medically unfit to travel.

On October 09, 2008, VMT voluntarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In return, Richard removed the posts regarding VMT from her blog.

Patrick Atkinson is the founder and executive director of the God's Child Project, a charitable organization that provides health and medical care, food, and education to children in Guatamala. Dr. James McLaughlin and Roberta McLaughlin volunteered for the God's Child Project from July 1997 to March 1998, at which time they were terminated from their volunteer positions. After their dismissal, the McLaughlins made a number of allegations against Atkinson with Guatamalan authorities.

According to court filings, the McLaughlins then returned to the United States and began emailing the Project's board members and supporters claiming that they had been improperly terminated and questioning Atkinson's ethics and character. They subsequently sent additional emails claiming that Atkinson had sexually abused two boys and issued a press release claiming that Atkinson had been arrested on chages of sexual abuse.

The McLaughlins also created a website called "Friends of Guatemalan Children" in November 1998.  According to court filings, they allegedly made statements on the website that suggested that Atkinson misued funds, lied, molested children, and committed criminal acts in Guatamala and the United States, all in connection with Atkinson's previous work for Covenant House, another charitable organization that operated in Guatamala. The McLaughlins also contacted the North Dakota Attorney General's Office concering Atkinson and the Project and repeated their previous accusations of criminal conduct.

In an effort to resolve the present dispute, Atkinson and the God’s Child Project attempted to contact the McLaughlins in October of 2002, to request that they retract their website. At the time the McLaughlins received notice of the letter they were traveling in Argentina and Brazil. On November 7, 2002, an attorney responded on behalf of the McLaughlins and asked what portions of the website were false or misleading. On February 24, 2003, an attorney for Atkinson responded and included a copy of Atkinson’s unfiled complaint.

On July 28, 2003, Atkinson sued the McLaughlins in federal court in North Dakota for defamation and interference with business relations.  For more information on the lawsuit, see the CMLP Database entry: Atkinson v. McLaughlin.

William Murawski, a frequent political candidate, sued Ron Gunzburger, who runs Politics1.com, for defamation and violating his First Amendment rights. Murawski alleged that Gunzburger violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to list his name as a candidatefor New York governor on Politics1.com. He also alleged that Gunzburger defamed him when he later added Murawski's name to the website by placing it close enough to a Communist Party candidate that search engine results for his name pulled up a snippet of text showing Murawski's name immediately after the words "Communist Political Organizer."

Murawski brought other claims against several additional defendants, including the New York State Board of Elections, several current and former New York government officials, Yahoo!, and IAC/Interactive Corp. (which runs Ask.com).

Gunzburger moved to dismiss the claims against him and for sanctions against Murawski.  The court granted his motion to dismiss, ruling that, because Gunzburger was not a government actor, Murawski could not bring a claim against him for violation of his First Amendment rights. The court rejected the defamation claim as well, ruling that Gunzburger did not identify Murawski as a communist on his website and that the displayed search engine results were not attributable to Gunzburger.

The court denied Gunzburger's motion for sanctions, however, because Murawski was representing himself pro se and may not have been aware of the possibility of sanctions when he wrote his original complaint.

The court also dismissed Murawski's claim against IAC/Interactive for reproducing Gunzburger's list and failing to remove Politics1.com from its directory, relying on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In addition, the court dismissed the claims against Yahoo! and several of the government officials.  The case is still pending against the New York State Board of Elections, but the remaining claims do not relate to online speech in any way. 

Direct sales company FreeLife International filed a defamation lawsuit against David Lucas Burge, a natural-foods activist whose website purported to expose FreeLife's health claims about its Himalayan Goji Juice drink. Burge's website, breathe.org, featured an in-depth investigative series that disputed FreeLife's contention that its goji drink retains enzymes that other goji drinks lack. FreeLife filed suit in Arizona state court in October 2007, and the defendants removed the case to federal district court in November. 

FreeLife also brought a breach of contract claim against Burge. FreeLife is a multi-level marketing company, and it operates primarily through person-to-person sales. It accomplishes this by allowing interested consumers to sell its goji drinks as "FreeLife Marketing Executives." The online sign-up process for the position includes a contractual provision precluding the signer from disparaging the company. Burge allegedly went through the sign-up process while gathering information on FreeLife and is bound by the provision, according to the company. 

FreeLife also named WhoIs Privacy Protection Services as a defendant. WhoIs is a company that allows website operators to hold domains anonymously by substituting its own contact information for theirs in domain registrations. FreeLife argued that WhoIs helped the operators of breathe.org to remain anonymous and thus assisted in the defamation. WhoIs was dismissed from the case on November 06, 2007, apparently by agreement of the parties.

Burge and the other remaining defendants, including Burge's company American Music Education (AME), filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion with respect to Noelle Boucherle and denied it with respect to Burge. It determined that he had consented to Arizona jurisdiction as part of the terms of the marketing executive contract with FreeLife, and that jurisdiction was appropriate because Burge sufficiently targeted his speech at FreeLife, an Arizona corporation.

The court also dismissed the motion with respect to AME and AME employee Gary Boucherle, but it allowed them to re-file their motions after limited discovery. After completing this limited discovery, the parties agreed the claims against Gary Boucherle would be dismissed. When AME filed a renewed motion to dismiss, the court again denied the motion.

Update:

10/1/2009 - The court denied Burge's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and the defamation claim.  The court granted FreeLife's motion for summary judgment on Burge's counterclaim.

On June 17, 2008, Barry Shy, a Los Angeles real estate developer, and his development company, 5th St Loft, sued Jessica Jordan and Alan Dylan, who reside in a building developed by Shy and allegedly run the website Truedowntown, the "unofficial" site for the Shybary Grand Loft in Los Angeles.  The lawsuit claims that Jordan and Dylan libeled Shy and damaged his businesses by making disparaging comments about him.

Jordan and Dylan are both owners of units in the SB Grand, a prominent development in downtown Los Angeles.  Jordan also runs the website  Truedowntown, which she created to "inspire positive change at the Shybary Grand by identifying issues that need to be dealt with by the board and management company, especially if those issues have ignored California Law." (The suit claims that Dylan also is connected with the website, but Jordan has stated that is incorrect).

According to plaintiffs' complaint, Jordan and Dylan made the following disparaging statements about Shy:

a) Barry Shy is a criminal
b) Barry Shy is a "slum lord"
c) Barry Shy is "dishonest" and only cares about "making a profit"
d) "Do Not Buy or Rent from Barry Shy you will regret it"
e) Barry Shy has broken Federal Laws
f) Barry Shy is a horrible business man with no principals

Although the complaint does not identify where the statements appeared, Blogdowntown, a site that describes itself as a "central point for news and discussion of Downtown Los Angeles," noted that all of the statements were drawn from comments on that site's March of 2006 story about Shy's purchase of buildings in Los Angeles' historic core.  Some of these statements were posted psuedonymously, which likely explains why Shy also named "Does 1-100" as defendants in the suit.

Update:

A case management conference has been schedule for 11/04/2008 at 08:45 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. 

Universal Communication Systems ("UCS") and its CEO, Michael Zwebner, sued Lycos, its Spanish parent company Terra Networks, and several anonymous users of Lycos's Raging Bull forum after the anonymous users created a forum about UCS and criticized the company there. UCS sought an injunction requiring Lycos to delete the UCS forum and to prevent it from ever being recreated.

In its original complaint, filed in federal court in Florida, UCS invoked claims of consumer fraud under Massachusetts law, dilution of trade name under Florida law, and a federal "cyberstalking" statute. Lycos moved to dismiss UCS's claims or, alternatively, to transfer the case to Massachusetts federal court.  UCS moved for a preliminary injunction, which the court denied.  UCS amended and resubmitted its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Before ruling on the motions before it, the court stayed discovery in the case.  UCS, however, initiated a new, second action in Florida federal court, which made largely identical claims. Lycos moved to consolidate the two cases.  The court instead granted Lycos' earlier motion to transfer the venue of the first action to Massachusetts.  The court hearing the second action soon transferred it to Massachusetts as well, and the Massachusetts court consolidated the two cases. 

At this point, UCS's complaint alleged four causes of action: (1) violation of Florida securities laws; (2) violation of a federal criminal statute prohibiting harassing communications (47 U.S.C. § 223); (3) trademark dilution under Florida law; and (4) violation of a Florida "cyberstalking" statute. In Massachusetts, Lycos moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that it was protected from liability for third party content under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230"). Terra also moved to dismiss, claiming that the Massachusetts federal court had no jurisdiction over it, but even if it did, UCS had not shown Terra liable for the acts of its subsidiary.

The Massachusetts district court granted both motions, ruling that CDA 230 barred the Florida securities and cyberstalking claims, that the Florida dilution claim was a defamation claim in disguise and thus also barred by CDA 230, and that 47 U.S.C. § 223 did not create a private cause of action.

UCS moved to file an amended complaint against Lycos and Terra, but the court denied the motion, ruling that the defendants would still be immune from the claims in the proposed amended complaint.  The court, however, did allow UCS to add the anonymous forum users to the lawsuit.  UCS filed its amended complaint with claims of fraud against the users, and moved for entry of separate and final judgment, so that it might withdraw its claims against Lycos and Terra while retaining its new claims against the anonymous posters.  One of the anonymous posters, Roberto Villasenor, answered UCS's complaint and filed counterclaims against UCS, as well as crossclaims against the other posters. The Massachusetts court denied UCS's motion for entry of separate and final judgment, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over Villasenor and the other anonymous posters.

UCS appealed these decisions to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The First Circuit affirmed the lower courts rulings and dismissed the case.  It decided that CDA 230 granted immunity to Lycos and Terra on the Florida securities and cyberstalking claims.  It also affirmed that 47 U.S.C. § 223 did not create and private cause of action and that use of UCS's name in the Raging Bull forum did not create trademark liability. Finally, it agreed that, without the claims against Lycos and Terra, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear UCS's claims against the anonymous users.

Note: This is a user-submitted description.

The removal of the school's logo and the addition of the disclaimer was not enough for CUNY's general counsel. In the letter they sent on 04/08/08, they said CUNY Law Blog has 10 days to change the name of the blog to something that "does not create the misimpression that it is an official communication of CUNY or the law school. Just as in the last letter, this one suggests "CUNY Law Student's Blog." If we do not change the name, the letter says they will take action to protect their trademark and report us to google.

To quote from the last post on this issue: "[I]n the spirit of community and transparency, we leave it up to the CUNY Law community at-large to decide the issue of any name change. To weigh in on the subject, please either (1) post a comment to this blog, (2) email cunylawblog@gmail.com, (3) stop in the hallway or email or leave a note in the mailboxes of student group leaders, student government members or CUNY Law Blog contributors, or (4) chime in on the new poll located at the bottom of the right column on this blog." In deciding to keep the name the same, we took into account both the poll results, which were quite close, and the 25 comments left on the Jane Davis post. Given the different results of the comments and poll, there seemed to be no clear right choice.

The poll and the comments seemed to be a wash, one in favor of changing the name and the other of keeping it. What ultimately tipped the balance was the input of those who took the time to comment. Half of the comments explicitly wanted to keep the name, and more than a quarter others seemed to be in favor of keeping the name.

On February 20, 2008, an anonymous plaintiff sued Jason Fortuny in Illinois federal court for copyright infringement, invasion of privacy through the publication of private facts, and intrusion, after Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted his photograph and personal information on the Internet.

Mr. Fortuny, a now-famous Internet "troll" who was featured in an August 2008 New York Times article, performed a notorious "Craigslist Experiment" in 2006, in which he posted a fake ad on Craigslist pretending to be a woman seeking a “str8 brutal dom muscular male” for sex. According to the New York Times, over one-hundred men responded, providing photographs and contact information. Mr. Fortuny allegedly posted this material to his blog, RFJason, and Encyclopedia Dramatica (described by the New York Times as "an online compendium of troll humor and troll lore"). Mr. Fortuny disputes posting the photographs and contact information to Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

One of the men who responded to Mr. Fortuny's prank filed the Illinois lawsuit, claiming that Fortuny violated his copyrights and invaded his privacy by posting his photograph and personal information. The complaint seeks $75,000 in damages and requests an injunction requiring Mr. Fortuny to remove the photograph and contact information from his website.

Mr. Fortuny is representing himself in the lawsuit. On July 11th, 2008, he filed a letter that the court treated as a motion to dismiss. The motion, in which Mr. Fortuny challenged the court's jurisdiction over him and the substance of the plaintiff's claims, is pending.

Before filing suit, the anonymous plaintiff sent Mr. Fortuny and his web host a DMCA takedown notice. Mr. Fortuny sent a counter-notification, and his host restored the material. Please see our related database entry, Doe v. Fortuny (Correspondence).

Update:

4/9/09 - The court entered a default judgment against Fortuny, requiring him to pay $74,252.56 in damages, attorneys fees, and costs. 

Denise McVea, a journalist and author, sued Alamo historian James Crisp in Texas federal court for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Crisp criticized McVea's research and book about in forum posts on a prominent Alamo history website, www.thealamofilm.com. 

According to plaintiff's complaint, Crisp made the following allegedly defamatory statements:

• "when confronted by logical contraditions in her argument, Plaintiff simply denies them."
• "I was willing to give her research the benefit of the dbout, but ultimately unwilling to lend my support to a work which stretched both the evidence and credulity, as her book clearly does."
• "On the other hand, Dunn, after years of archival research carried out in his spare time, has now brought forth a succinct article which, using passport applications, census data, newspaper accounts, and ships' passenger lists, makes a rock-solid case that Denise's provocative and interesting theory is wrong -- just flat wrong."
• "McVea, I have discovered -- in large part thanks to this forum -- is at her nastiest when her arguments are at their weakest -- and she is plenty nasty just now."
• "The documents which Dunn has used -- documents either ignored, not found, or suppressed by Denise McVea -- are in the public domain, and available for anyone to check."
• "Please read very carefully any 'rebuttal' submitted by Ms. McVea, and check her references with equal care.  That's what I did when I found that her arguments in previous submissions -- arguments based on prodigious and ingenious archival research -- nevertheless simply did not match the documentary evidence." 

Crisp moved to dismiss McVea's claims due to the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Crisp and McVea's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The court ruled that Crisp was subject to Texas's personal jurisdiction, because Crisp's "comments . . . aimed at a Texas resident and directed to a predominately Texas audience on a website devoted to Texas history" established sufficient contacts with the state.

But the court granted Crisp's motion to dismiss due to failure to state a claim.  The court ruled that given the context of the online forum and the nature of the discussion, the disputed comments could not be reasonably found to have a defamatory meaning, but rather were protected expressions of opinion.

McVea appealed the court's ruling.  On Aug. 27, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous.  The court held that "a person of ordinary intelligence would not find Crisp's words reasonably capable of defamatory meaning."