Pet shop owner Robert Novak, operator of Petswarehouse.com, sued Active Window Productions ("AWP"), host of the Aquatic Plants Digest ("APD"), a forum and email list for aquatic plant gardeners and hobbyists, and several individuals who criticized Pets Warehouse.  Novak added further claims against the individuals after they organized to protest Novak's lawsuit.  Novak sued in New York federal court on claims of cybersquatting, defamation, trademark dilution and infringement, trade libel, tortious interference with business, false light, unfair competition, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to court documents, Dan Resler, a computer scientist, posted a message in May 2001 that warned: "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't." He went on to detail his gripes about the company's customer service, based on what he said was a delayed shipment of plants he'd ordered.  Resler later followed up with this post amending his previous warning: "to clarify: Pet Warehouse OK, Pets Warehouse NOT." 

Other members of the list soon added their own complaints, including the following alleged statements recounted in the plaintiff's complaint:

• [a]s a source for purchasing plants, they do not have a good reputation (Defendant Jared Weinberger - May 21, 2001)
• But you don’t have to take my word as the last word on their horrible service. Feeling lucky? Go ahead - try them out yourselves. After all, it’s only your time and money, right? (Defendant Dan Resler - May 18, 2001)
• They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it’s more like 20%. Or less. If at all. (Defendant Thomas Barr - May 17, 2001)
• Given the continual flow of negative comments about PetSwarehouse that I’ve read for nearly two years on this list, I’ve decided to add a warning (and figure this is better than simply removing them. (Defendant Weinberger - May 18, 2001)
• Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you’ll be swearing! (May 22, 2001)
• I believe they call that deceptive advertising. Or bait-and-switch. Take your pick. (Defendant Sean Carney - May 16, 2001)

After seeing the criticism, Novak filed suit against the posters for libel and defamation seeking damages of $1 million, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking damages of $15 million.

The defendants began to organize against the lawsuit via online forums and the APD list, and sought donations to their legal defense fund.  In organizing and promoting their legal defense, the defendants referenced Pets Warehouse.  In response, Novak brought additional claims against the defendants, including trademark violations and business torts. 

As a result, several defendants settled with Novak in December 2001 and agreed to remove any posts or messages "concerning or referring to" Novak. According to the "stipulation of settlement" posted on the defendants' information site, Dan Resler also agreed to pay $4,150.

In 2007, Novak amended his complaint against AWP, AWP's editor Mark Rosenstein, and AWP poster Robert Hudson. AWP and  Mark Rosenstein answered, denying Novak's claims and invoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as granting them immunity from any defamation or infringement stemming from APD posters' comments. They also brought counterclaims against Novak for violations of New York Civil Rights Law.

Update:

8/7/2008 - Court ordered that a status conference will be held in Courtroom 820 of the Federal Courthouse in Central Islip on September 5, 2008 at 11:30 a.m 

9/19/2008 - Status conference held. Court ordered a pretrial conference for May 29, 2009.

Deep Blue Marine, its CEO Wilf Blum, and Alexander Lindale LLC sued former Deep Blue operations manager Edward Krajewski after Krajewski criticized the plaintiffs and allegedly disclosed Deep Blue proprietary information on several online investor forums. The plaintiffs sought an injunction in Utah federal court against Krajewski to prevent him from posting any further criticism or materials. They also brought claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with economic advantage, breach of contract (including publication of trade secrets), and breach of convenant of good faith.

In May 2008, Deep Blue moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Krajewski. The court decided the motion ex parte after satisfying itself that Krajewski had received notice of the hearing. It granted the motion, issuing an order prohibiting Krajewski from

In July 2008, Krajewski, acting pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. He also submitted an affidavit explaining that he lacked sufficient financial resources to litigate the case in Utah and requesting that the court transfer the case to Pennsylvania, his home state. On July 22, the court denied the motion for an extension of time to file a brief, noting that Krajewski did not identify what motion he would be addressing and that no motions were currently pending. The court added that Krajewski could inititiate a motion and file a brief in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules.

Update:

1/15/2009 - Action dismissed without prejudice subject to parties' settlement agreement  

Roslyn Johnson, former Deputy Director of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, sued Jonetta Rose Barras, Talk Media Communications, government watchdog website DCWatch, two DCWatch executives, and The District of Columbia, after DC Watch published in its electronic newsletter and on its website articles submitted by Barras, a local political reporter. Barras's articles, which were posted also on her personal website JR Barras.com, looked at alleged cronymism in the hiring practices of the Department and stated that Johnson had inflated her resume in order to secure her position. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 70-75 . Johnson filed her claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with contract, negligence, and violations of the District of Columbia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in D.C. Superior Court.

DCWatch and its two executives, Dorothy Brizill and Gary Imhoff, moved to dismiss Johnson's claims against them, arguing that DCWatch could not be found liable for Barras's article because DCWatch was protected from liability for publishing third-party content under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230). They also argued that they could only be held liable if Barras' accusations were not substantially true and cited a report by the D.C. Inspector General that found Johnson had inflated her resume.

In addition, Barras moved for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that her accusations were substantially true, and the District of Columbia moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the D.C. FOIA did not create a claim on which Johnson could sue.

The court denied DCWatch's motion initially and granted Johnson limited discovery to ascertain whether Barras was an agent of DCWatch, which would allow Johnson to overcome DCWatch's CDA 230 immunity. The court also denied Barras's and the District's motions, ruling that it would let Johnson investigate her claims in discovery.

Johnson failed to uncover evidence of a relationship between DCWatch and Barras that would sustain her claims against the DCWatch defendants, and she voluntarily withdrew her claims against them in February 2008.

Update:

01/29/09 - Case dismissed with prejudice as to Barras and Talk Media Communications; remaining claims settled. 

Moving company Nationwide Relocation Services ("Nationwide") sued Tim Walker, Walker's company, Consumers First Corp., which runs the MovingScam.com website, and several contributors to the MovingScam.com forum after Walker and the other contributors criticized the company's services. According to the complaint, the website used the trademarks of Nationwide and other moving companies without permission and published statements indicating that Nationwide engaged in "scams," while at the same time trying to induce customers to purchase moving-related products and services from the site and its advertisers. Nationwide sued for false advertising, trademark infringement, unfair competition, defamation, and tortious interference with business relationships in Florida federal court.

Defendants Sharon Bayolo and Farrah Leigh Wanner each moved to dismiss, Bayolo for lack of jurisidiction and Wanner for failure to state a claim.  As a result, Nationwide amended its complaint, and the court denied the motions as moot. 

In October 2007, Walker and Consumers First moved to dismiss for improper venue, failure to state a claim, and lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court denied the motions, finding that Walker and Consumers First specifically targeted the Southern District of Florida in operation of the website, thereby establishing jurisdiction and venue, and that Nationwide's claims were sufficiently stated.

In April 2008, Nationwide amended its complaint again, and the defendants Walker, Consumer First, and Wanner filed an answer.

Update:

8/6/2008 - The parties settled the case.

In September 1997, Katherine Griffis sued Marianne Luban for defamation in Alabama state court after Luban criticized Griffis's academic credentials on the sci.archaeology USEnet newsgroup.  Griffis also sought an injunction against Luban to prevent her from republishing any of her accusations.

According to court documents, Luban's lawyer told her not to answer Griffis's complaint, saying that Alabama had no personal jurisdiction over her.  Luban did not answer, and in January 1998, the Alabama court entered a default judgment against her, awarding Griffis $25,000 and granting her request for an injunction. 

When Griffis attempted to enforce the judgment and injunction in Minnesota, Luban moved in Minnesota state court to vacate the Alabama court's judgment on jurisdictional grounds.  The Minnesota trial court found, however, that the Alabama court had personal jurisdiction over Luban.  Luban appealed, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.  Both the trial and appeals courts ruled that Luban was subject to Alabama's jurisdiction because Luban knew that Griffis was an Alabama resident and that her accusations would have an effect in Alabama.

Luban appealed again, this time to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor.  The court held that Luban's knowledge of Griffis's Alabama residence was insufficient for Luban to reasonably expect to be sued in Alabama.  According to the court, for Alabama to have jurisdiction over Luban, Griffis would have to show that Luban specifically targeted Alabama in making her accusations.  Griffis failed to prove this, the court reasoned, because she only showed that Luban targeted the sci.archaeology community, which did not have a sufficient relationship with the State of Alabama to make Luban subject to Alabama's jurisdiction.

In March 1997, Ben Ezra, Weinstein, and Company ("BEW") sued America Online, Inc. ("AOL") for defamation and negligence in New Mexico state court after AOL allegedly published incorrect values for BEW's stock price and share volume. 

AOL removed the lawsuit from state to federal court and moved for summary judgment. In its motion, AOL argued that it was protected from liability by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230") because it did not create the stock information itself, but rather hired third parties to produce it.  The court agreed with AOL and dismissed the case.

BEW appealed the case to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.   On March 14, 2000, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that it correctly applied CDA 230.  BEW submitted a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but its writ was denied on October 2, 2000.

Programmes Internationaux D'Echanges (P.I.E.), a French nonprofit that organizes student exchange programs, filed suit against Danielle Grijalva, director of the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES), over emails and postings on CSFES's website that criticized the organization's handling of students. P.I.E.'s complaint asserted claims of defamation, civil conspiracy, interference with contract, and interference with business relationships. The suit also named as a defendant Veronica Beddick, a former employee of ASSE International, a nonprofit that assisted in student placements, alleging that she provided confidential information to Grijalva and assisted in the disputed acts.

In emails and postings to the CSFES website, Grijalva allegedly accused the plaintiff organizations of numerous wrondoings related to their treatment of foreign exchange students. According to the complaint and other court filings, the accusations included that the organizations failed to place students in schools, failed to place students in permanent homes, placed students in homes with felons, and otherwise violated laws that regulate foreign exchange programs.

According to press reports, Grijalva has said that she sent an email to the father of a foreign exchange student at the student's request but that she has not engaged in any "mass effort" to contact students, their families, or host families.

P.I.E.'s complaint included a request for a temporary restraining order against Grijalva and Beddick. On September 21, 2007, the court granted the request, ordering the defendants to cease communicating with P.I.E. students as well as the students' familes, host familes, and educational institutions. The temporary restraining order, by its terms, expired after 10 days unless the court renewed it.

On Dec. 12, 2007, the court granted a preliminary injunction against Grijalva that reiterated the prohibition on direct communication with students and others involved with the plaintiffs and further ordered her to refrain from disseminating false or misleading information about the plaintiff organizations via email or her website.

On May 30, 2008, the court granted a near-identical preliminary injunction against Grijalva brought by P.I.E. associates (and plaintiff-intervenors) ASSE and World Heritage, Inc.

Bronx District Attorney Robert T. Johnson issued a grand jury subpoena to New York political blog Room Eight seeking identifying information for several anonymous bloggers and commentors. The subpoena ordered Room Eight operators Gur Tsabar and Ben Smith not to disclose the subpoena's existence -- not even to the anonymous posters -- because doing so could "impede the investigation" and "interfere with law enforcement."

In the disputed posts, Room Eight posters using the pseudonyms "Republican Dissident" (RD), "Dissident Hunter," and "Anonymous" criticized local politicians and Bronx Republican Party officials. According to copies of posts attached to the subpoena, a poster accused Bronx Board of Elections Commissioner J.C. Polanco and board employee Dawn Sandow of having an extramarital affair and other posters accused them of committing misdeeds. Many of the posts focused on Sandow, including one that included a graphic of a witch flying on a broom and told her to "HAVE A NICE FLIGHT" (caps in the original). Other postings attached to the subpoena alleged that Bronx Republican Party official Jay Savino and other local politicians and officials had engaged in fraudulent and illegal activities.

According to Room Eight's court filings, anonymous poster "Republican Dissident" also criticized the Bronx Republican Party for failing to run candidates against District Attorney Johnson, the D.A. who issued the subpoena to Room Eight. However, the District Attorney did not include these posts when he sent the subpoena requesting the information from Room Eight.

Following receipt of the subpoena, Tsabar and Smith sought permission from the D.A.'s Office to notify the anonymous posters about the subpoena so they could object to the revelation of their identifying information. Negotiations between the parties failed, so the non-disclosure demand remained in force.

On May 22, 2008, Tsabar and Smith moved to quash the subpoena in the Supreme Court of New York for Bronx County. They argued that the subpoena threatened the posters' First Amendment right to speak anonymously, analogizing to numerous civil cases protecting online anonymity rights in the context of subpoenas. According to Public Citizen, counsel for Tsabar and Smith, Room Eight also threatened to file a federal suit on the ground that the threat of criminal prosection violated the posters' right to criticized the District Attorney.

After Room Eight filed its motion to quash, Johnson withdrew the subpoena. Public Citizen advised the D.A. that it still would file suit if he intended that the subpoena's non-disclosure language remain in force. The D.A. then freed the defendants to disclose information regarding the subpoenas.

Diane Fremgen, the clerk of courts for Winnebago County, Wisconsin, sued online forum FullofBologna.com; its operator, Dennis Payne; Studio 28, Payne's web design company; and a John Doe known as Mr. Imperfect for defamation after Mr. Imperfect posted two lewd criticisms of Fremgen on FullofBologna.com.  Fremgen, suing in Wisconsin state court, also sought a temporary injunction to force Payne to take down the website and remove the offending comments.

The court immediately granted Fremgen's ex parte request for a temporary injunction, and ordered the forum shut down on March 30, 2006.  As a result, Payne settled and agreed to reveal Mr. Imperfect's IP address and to remove all posts that referenced Fremgen by name.