Salisbury, Maryland Police Chief Allan Webster filed a lawsuit against local blogger Joe Albero, who operates the Salisbury News blog, wich covers matters of local interest in Salisbury and Wicomico County. Albero, who often takes local politicians to task, criticized and posted information about Webster on the blog. Although the details are not entirely clear, the dispute seems to have revolved, at least in part, around Albero's posting of a third-party, anonymous letter addressed to Salisbury City Council Members. Webster's complaint included claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.

In his pre-trial memorandum, Albero argued that he should not be compelled to disclose his source for the letter. He argued that the source of the letter was not relevant to the case, that Maryland's shield law protected him from having to identify his source, and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized him from liability for posting the letter.

In an April 9, 2008 ruling, District Court Judge Gerald Purnell ruled that Albero could not take advantage of the Maryland shield law, which applies to individuals who are "employed" by the "news media" (which is defined as including any "electronic means of disseminating news and information to the public"). Although we have not been able to obtain a copy or transcript of the ruling, one report indicates that the court denied Albero the protection of the shield law because he does not earn revenue from the Salisbury News. In any event, the court decided that Albero would not be required to reveal the identity of his source, relying on either the relevance or the CDA 230 argument (exactly which is not clear).

On July 30, hours before the trial was set to begin, the parties announced they had settled the dispute on "non-monetary terms." The parties offered no further comment regarding the settlement.

In 2006, Reza Ganjavi, a musician and record producer in the field of classical guitar, filed suit in federal court in California against several named and anonymous Internet posters.  Ganjavi alleged that the individual defendants posted negative comments about him on various websites and Usenet's classical guitar newsgroup and created websites mocking his website.  Ganjavi also alleged that the defendants fraudulently published text purporting to be his work and used his identity to make offensive and threatening statements, including threatening to kill a person, issuing racial slurs, and expressing sympathy for terrorists. 

In Ganjavi's suit in California, the court order dismissing the case without prejudice indicated that all defendants either were dropped from the case by the plaintiff or filed successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ganjavi then sued Jeremy and Cindy Smith, Todd Tipton, William Jennings, and Deloitte & Touche in federal court in Illinois over essentially the same facts. Ganjavi named Deloitte & Touche because the company employed Jeremy Smith and he was believed to have made some of the disputed comments from Deloitte's computers (Ganjavi later dropped the company from the suit).

Ganjavi's third amended complaint contained claims for violation of attribution and integrity rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 106A), "false presentation" in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), false light, appropriation of name and likeness, libel, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair competition, and other state law claims.

The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit and for summary judgment on various grounds. In July 2007, the district court granted Jeremy Smith's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. With respect to the two federal claims, the court held (1) that Ganjavi's federal copyright claim under § 106A did not survive as a basis for federal jurisdiction because that section only applies to works of visual art under § 101 of the Copyright Act, which do not include electronic publications, and (2) that the ACPA claim did not survive because the complaint did not assert that the defendants had attempted to or intended to profit from the alleged wrongful conduct. The court further found that since Ganjavi had not established the jurisdictional threshold amount for the remaining state law claims, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

According to Ganjavi's website, he had planned to refile in state court but reached a settlement agreement with the defendants before doing so. 

Warner Bros. Records sent a cease and desist letter (via Blogger) to Music2Nite, a music blog that had posted materials related to recording artist Madonna. The demand letter not only specified that the blog owner remove a specific post -- Music2Nite primarily posts YouTube videos and links to MP3s of current artists' work or live performances -- it also required Music2Nite to remove all "links, references, and/or artwork associated with Madonna."

The offending post seems to have been removed from the Music2Nite site, but other posts and links to materials related to Madonna remain on the site (see here and here).

In October 2007, Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. and its sole shareholder, David Kent, sued Jean Bowler in federal court in Michigan. Bowler runs Ageless Beauty, an informational website on various aspects of beauty, cosmetics, and cosmetic surgery. According to the complaint, Bowler published an article on the website "sometime in 2007," in which she discussed an investigation of Liftestyle Lift's advertising methods by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (BBB).

The complaint acknowledged that BBB did in fact investigate the company and its advertising in 2007, but alleged that BBB closed the investigation with a report dated 30,2007, and that Bowler's article mischaracterized the nature of the investigation and falsely implied that it was ongoing after its closure. See Cmplt. 14-15. Lifestyle Lift claimed that Bowler's article constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act, defamation, commercial disparagement, and a violation of the Texas Deceptive Practices-Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint also alleged that Bowler infringed Lifestyle Lift's trademark and engaged in cybersquatting by using "Lifestyle Lift" in a URL for the site and in metadata. (Note: the cybersquatting claim is unprecedented and definitely invalid because Lifestyle Lift did not allege that Bowler registered, trafficked in, or used a domain name containing the words "Lifestyle Lift" or anything like it. The company was evidently confused about the difference between a single URL and the domain name for a website.)

The parties settled in February 2008. The entire terms of the settlement are not public, but Bowler has removed the disputed article from her website.

In March 2007, Thomas Evans, a deputy sheriff in the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, sued his former wife, Linda Evans, and her mother, Shirley Preddy, for defamation, harassment, invasion of privacy, and other claims. After Thomas and Linda Evans divorced in 2002, they engaged in a bitter dispute in family court over custody of their child, child support, and other issues. Thomas filed a separate lawsuit in California court after Linda and her mother allegedly posted false statements about him on various Internet websites and filed two written complaints with his employer. Thomas also alleged that Linda and Preddy published information from his medical and financial records on the Internet.

The trial court granted Thomas a preliminary injunction that prohibited Linda and Preddy from: (1) publishing "false and defamatory statements" about Thomas on the Internet; (2) publishing "confidential personal information" about Thomas on the Internet; and (3) contacting Thomas's employer regarding Thomas except to call 911 to report criminal conduct. Linda appealed, and the appellate court reversed the ruling of the district court. It held that the preliminary injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and that it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On the issue of Linda's alleged publication of Thomas's private information, the appellate court instructed the lower court to identify precisely what information Thomas seeks to protect and to balance his privacy rights (and the safety issues involved in disclosing personal information about a police officer) against the free-speech interests in publication.

Sometime before the appellate court ruled on the appeal, Thomas dismissed Preddy from the case, leaving Linda as the only defendant.

In June 2006, blogger Stephen Ward wrote a post criticizing Tiny Details, LLC, a company that produces doll-making kits that users can assemble at home and sell as a work-from-home-business. The post described Ward's negative experience with the company and directed readers to customer complaints, a Better Business Bureau report, and other materials critical of the company.

In February 2008, Kristopher Buchan, the president of Tiny Details, emailed Ward complaining that the post was libelous and demanding that Ward take it down. Buchan also stated that he had forwarded the post and Ward's domain information to his company attorney. Ward asked by reply email which statements were allegedly inaccurate. Buchan responded by stating that Ward "[would] be hearing from our attorney." Ward sent back additional emails asking for Buchan to identify the allegedly inaccurate statements and offering to update the post "with a more balanced view of your company" in order to avoid a lawsuit. Mr. Ward's site does not indicate whether Buchan ever responded, and there is no indication that Tiny Details filed a lawsuit.

The exchange between Ward and Buchan is detailed in the comments to Ward's original post.

Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. and LL NJ, Inc. are in the business of performing facelifts and other cosmetic surgery. In September 2006, they sued NBC-Subsidiary (WCAU-TV) (a.k.a. NBC 10), NBC Universal and certain of its affiliates, NBC reporter Lu Ann Cahn, and Dr. Louis Bucky over a television news report about the "Lifestyle Lift" cosmetic surgery procedure that appeared on NBC 10 in Philadelphia. In preparing the news report, the NBC defendants allegedly sent two individuals in an undercover capacity to LL NJ's offices to gather information and secretly videotape events on the premises. The news report itself was critical of the Lifestyle Lift procedure and included negative statements by former patients and Dr. Bucky, NBC10's hired expert. A copy of the news program was posted on the NBC10's website, but later removed, and a nearly verbatim transcript of the broadcast was originally posted on various local NBC websites.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Michigan, included claims for violation of the New Jersey wiretapping statute, trespass to land, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and defamation. In November 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, and the court dismissed the false advertising and wiretapping claims, and dismissed Dr. Bucky from the suit altogether for lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Later, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on the trespass and defamation claims. On April 28, 2008, the court denied the motion, holding that the defamation claim could go to trial. The court dismissed the trespass claim without prejudice, holding that a New Jersey court should decide that claim.

UPDATE:

On 7/14/2008 the court issued an order of referral to facilitative mediation. On 8/21/08, the court issued an order dimissing the case.

BoroughVENT.com, an online forum to discuss the Borough of Gettysburg, PA and surrounding region, and one of its adminstrators, Debra Golden, were the recipients of a complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The complaint, brought by two Maryland residents, alleges that the administrators and users of the site posted comments that berated, insulted, demeaned, and intimidated them in violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).

More specifically, the complaint alleges that "Respondent used unreasonable profanity in verbal assaults against Complainants" and that "Respondent referred to Complainant Phillips in sexual, scatological, sexist and disability-bigoted language" in violation of sections 5(d) and (e) of the PHRA.

Statements quoted in the complaint include the following: "She and her husband are no more than extortionists and terrorists"; "Beware shop owners, the Bitch on Wheels ... who sues people to have handicap ramps, has hit three stores today... This woman's extortion ends NOW!"; "I think we should have posters in all of the business downtown with her photo explaining what she is doing"; and "Speaking of head-hunting, that's what I want from this couple: their head (figuratively, of course)."

In October 2006, Ampersand Publishing LLC, the company that owns the Santa Barbara News-Press, filed a lawsuit against Santa Barabara Independent, Inc., publisher of the Santa Barbara Independent, another local newspaper. The case arose out of Independent editor Nick Welsh's posting of a draft News-Press article in connection with a post on his "Angry Poodle" blog on the Independent's website. The facts are a bit complicated.

Welsh's post appeared on July 14, 2006, during the turmoil following the resignation of several of the News-Press's top editors and a leading columnist because of conflicts between the newspaper staff and Wendy McCaw, the local billionaire who controls Ampersand and essentially owns the News-Press. On July 6, 2006, News-Press reporter Scott Hadley wrote an article about the resignations, but the News-Press chose not to publish it, and instead published a "note to readers" written by McCaw, which discussed the resignations and the departing staff members' supposed motivations for leaving. Apparently in response to this decision, Scott Hadley also resigned from the News-Press. (Since then, over fifty more employees have either quit or been fired. The whole crazy drama is chronicled in the documentary film, Citizen McCaw.)

Welsh's July 14 post reported on Hadley's resignation and criticized the News-Press for publishing McCaw's "note to readers" instead of Hadley's article. Crucially, Welsh included a hyperlink in the blog post to a copy of Hadley's draft article, which an unknown person had sent to the Independent's office the day before. (The link in Welsh's post led to a scanned PDF of the article hosted on the Independent's site). Welsh and the Independent contend that Welsh posted the draft in order to expose and comment upon what he saw as the censorship of an unflattering article. In court documents, they also argue that Welsh's use of the draft "contrasted its fact-based account of the News-Press resignations with the defensive editorializing published by the News-Press." The link and the draft article remained online from July 14 to July 19, at which point the Independent removed them after Ampersand threatened legal action.

Ampersand sued the Independent in federal court in California, claiming that Welsh's posting of the draft article constituted copyright infringement. Ampersand also alleged that Welsh had misappropriated its trade secrets by acquiring and publishing the draft article and by acquiring another draft News-Press article relating to the paper's arbitration proceeding against a former editor. (Welsh and the Independent deny ever obtaining a copy of this latter arbitration article.) Ampersand argued that although the draft articles contained publicly available facts, they also embodied confidential processes and information because they reflected the reporters' labors and ideas of how to investigate and report on an issue. Ampersand also brought claims for unfair competition under California law, intentional interference with propsective economic advantage and contract, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and contract.

In September 2007, both parties moved for summary judgment. Among other things, the Independent argued that Welsh's publication of Hadley's draft article for purposes of commentary and criticism was a fair use, that the draft article was not a trade secret, and that it never acquired or published a copy of the arbitration article. Ampersand argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its copyright infringement claim. In November 2007, the court granted Ampersand summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim, holding that Welsh's posting of Hadley's draft article was not fair use. The court dismissed Ampersand's trade secret claim based on the Hadley article, finding that the draft was not a trade secret. It reserved decision on the trade secret claim relating to the arbitration article, pending resolution of Ampersand's motion to compel Welsh to answer questions about his source of information about the article. (Welsh had refused to answer these questions, relying on the federal reporter's privilege.) The court also dismissed the unfair competition and tortious interference claims, finding that they were preempted by federal copyright law and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

After this ruling, the only issues remaining were the amount of damages to be awarded to Ampersand on the copyright infringement claim and whether Ampersand had a valid trade secret claim based on Welsh's alleged acquisition of the arbitration article. Related to this latter issue, the parties fought bitterly over Ampersand's motion to compel Welsh to reveal the source of his information about the arbitration article, presenting a bizarre and unprecedented legal battle between two newspapers over application of the reporter's privilege. Before the court resolved the motion to compel or ruled on the final trade secret claim, the parties settled the case. As part of the settlement, the Independent agreed not to challenge the court's ruling that it had violated federal copyright law. The financial terms of the settlement are not public.

In August 2007, 2Clix Australia sued Simon Wright, the founder of Australian broadband discussion forum Whirlpool, for alleged "injurious falsehood." According to 2Clix, Wright permitted anonymous users of the forum to post unmediated comments, and two threads contained "false and malicious" comments about 2Clix and its softward products. According to 2Clix's statement of claim, the threads included statements that 2Clix "has problems" and that it was losing its employees and relying on independent contractors. In addition, forum participants allegedly warned readers to avoid 2Clix's software.

2Clix filed suit after Wright refused to acquiesce to its repeated email requests to remove the content. 2Clix sought an injunction requiring Wright to remove the threads and damages in the amount of Aus$150,000. Wright defended the claim through the support of donations from users of his site. 2Clix withdrew its claim less than a month later.