Paul McMann, a Massachusetts real estate developer, sued the anonymous operator of an Internet "gripe site" about him. The website contained a photograph of Mr. McMann, the statement that he "turned lives upside down," and a suggestion to "be afraid, be very afraid." The website announced that it would soon be updated with specific evidence of McMann's alleged misdealings. McMann claimed that the unknown party operating the website violated his statutory and common law right of privacy, infringed his common-law copyright, and committed defamation. McMann sought to subpoena ISPs to discover the identity of the website operator.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because McMann asserted only state-law claims and did not identify the citizenship of the anonymous defendant. The court observed that diversity of citizenship between McMann and the ISPs that he sought to subpoena could not bestow subject-matter jurisdiction on the court. The court stated in the alternative that it would dismiss the underlying case for failure to state a claim. Relying on Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del.2005), an important case from the Delaware Supreme Court, the court opined that First Amendment protections for anonymous speech requires courts to impose a heightened preliminary burden on plaintiffs seeking to discover the identity of anonymous posters.

The court concluded that McMann could not meet this heightened burden because his complaint failed to even state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, the court held that the unknown website operator's publishing of a description of McMann's business activity and distributing a publicly available photograph did not impinge McMann's statutory right of privacy as a matter of law. It also found that McMann could not recover for misappropriation of his likeness because the website operator had not used his photograph for a commercial use, but rather for purposes of criticism. The court also held that Massachusetts does not recognize a common law cause of action for false light invasion of privacy, and that McMann's common law copyright claim was preempted by federal copyright law. Finally, the court indicated that McMann's defamation claim was fatally flawed because the statements at issue were non-actionable personal opinions that could not be proven true or false. McMann v. Doe, 460 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Mass. 2006).

The Gentle Wind Project ("GWP") was a "spiritual-healing" group that produced and distributed what it characterized as "healing instruments" based on designs communicated from "the spirit world." Husband and wife, James Bergin and Judy Garvey, left the group and started a web site, "Wind of Changes," to help others make informed decisions about GWP. On their site, Bergin and Garvey recounted their experiences with GWP and described what they characterize as the group's "bizarre" belief systems and practices.

Other defendants published links to the "Winds of Change" website on their websites and exchanged information and articles with Bergin and Garvey that were critical of GWP.

GWP threatened the couple with legal action and then, in May 2004, the group and a number of its leaders filed suit against them and the other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. In January 2006, the federal court granted summary judgment for Bergin and Garvey on the plaintiffs' RICO claims and dismissed the state-law defamation claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The GWP plaintiffs re-filed the defamation suit against Bergin and Garvey in state court in Maine. Before trial, in November 2006, the GWP plaintiffs asked for a settlement on Bergin and Garvey's terms. In the settlement agreement, the GWP plaintiffs dismissed the current suit and permanently abandoned any ability to sue Bergin and Garvey for anything the couple has written, including describing GWP as a cult, stating that the GWP "healing instruments" are "snake oil," or reporting the existence of group sexual activities, known to inner-circle members as "energy work." Under the terms of the agreement, Bergin and Garvey are expressly allowed to keep their Wind of Changes site open without any interference from GWP. Bergin and Garvey also received "an undisclosed amount" from the receiver of the GWP estate as compensation.

The federal court dismissed the action against Mr. Ross in January 2005. It also dismissed the claims against Ian Mander (from New Zealand) and refused to enter a default judgment against him. Mr. Mander was added to the settlement agreement between the GWP plaintiffs and Bergin and Garvey. Mr. Gamble and Mr. Fraser settled with the plaintiffs without payment and maintained their postings about GWP. Mr. Hassan settled with the GWP plaintiffs and removed all links to information about GWP in return for GWP removing statements made about him on its site.

On February 21, 2006, Austrian politician Peter Pilz posted comments on his (Austrian) website about Glock pistols making their way to the black market in Turkey. Der Standard, a German-language newspaper, reported on Pilz's statements in its print and online editions.

On April 6, 2006, Glock sued Pilz, Der Standard, and a number of co-defendants for defamation in Indiana state court. Glock read Pilz's comments as accusing it of conspiring with Kiesler Police Supply, a company based in Indiana, to sell more pistols in Iraq than were necessary in order to supply a black market in Turkey. (The district court noted in its order dismissing the action that a more plausible reading of the article is that the Austrian government was to blame for not better managing the supply of Austrian pistols.)

On May 9, 2006, Bronner Online AG and Der Standard removed the lawsuit to federal court. Glock settled with Sperlich, Pickl-Herk, and Freiler in June 2006.

In March 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana decided the defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It concluded that to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Austrian defendants would violate the Due Process Clause. Summing up the situation well, the court wrote:

As an aside on the international context, the court notes how extraordinary and problematic finding personal jurisdiction in this situation would be. Pilz is a member of the Austrian Parliament writing about what is arguably a matter of policy of the Austrian government; Der Standard is a newspaper that reported on Pilz's views. Today almost everything written down ends up on the internet in one form or another. Does the Due Process Clause allow the internet to transform American courts into worldwide speech regulators every time an American entity gets mentioned? That is doubtful, but essentially what Plaintiff argues.

The court dismissed the action with respect to all the remaining defendants.

Dean Kantis published critical statements about St. George Corrective Vision and his opthamologist Nicholas Caro on his website, Life After Lasik.

In September 2005, St. George and Caro sued Kantis for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, claiming, among other things, that Kantis defamed them by stating that Caro had used an "illegal laser" to perform his laser eye surgery and that Caro was a "butcher" and a "one stop chop shop doctor." The lawsuit requests compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction.

Update:

4/21/06 - Kantis filed a motion to dismiss.

7/13/06 - Court issued Agreed Order to dismiss the case.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NBCE) obtained an administrative subpoena issued pursuant to section 512(h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, requesting that Earthlink disclose the identity of an Earthlink subscriber who posted comments anonymously to the Tab and Brandy blog. The anonymous comments disclosed 41 questions (and some answers) from the multi-state bar exam, after the exam had been administered.

The blog operator, a Texas lawyer, removed the string containing these comments shortly after they were posted, when the NBCE contacted the Texas Board of Law Examiners, which administered the bar in Texas. It is not clear whether Earthlink had sufficient records to disclose the identity of the poster.

The docket reveals no activity after April 12, 2007.

David Milum, upset with his lawyer Rafe Banks over the handling of a prior case, demanded that Banks pay back the $3,000 in fees he had received. When Banks refused, Milum posted entries on the Forsyth County Political Forum, a local political website he ran, in which he accused Banks of delivering bribes to judges on behalf of drug dealers.

According to court filings in the case, on May 10, 2004, Milum posted an entry titled "Polo Fields Residents Don’t Know About Attorney Rafe Banks?" In it, Milum stated:

Are you a drug dealer when you have an ounce of cocaine in your possession worth hundreds of dollars or when you carry $25,000.00 to a Superior Court judge . . . to keep a drug dealer out of jail? Are you a drug dealer when you have a gram of methamphetamine in your possession or is it when you arrange for a lifelong drug dealer to escape doing eighteen years in federal prison for attempted murder? Polo Fields resident Rafe Banks is both. For the proof of this, visit our . . . video. . . . A cocaine dealer names Rafe Banks as being involved in bribing judges here in Forsyth County and in Federal Court in Miami. . . . Rafe Banks will never make one single move against me or this website because he knows that we have the witnesses to prove that he carried these drug dealer payoffs to [a] judge . . . .

After a reader asked whether Milum was also criticizing all lawyers who represented drug dealers, Milum responded: "No. This does not include those attorneys who simply defend drug dealers. I am speaking of transporting substantial bribes, as did attorney Rafe Banks, to those crooked judges . . . to get drug dealers off . . . ."

On June 9, 2004, according to court filings Milum posted another comment on the site entitled "Cumming Attorney Rafe Banks, Drug Dealer Bribery Mule," in which he stated:

Rafe Banks, do you still take drug dealer bribes to Forsyth County judges? How long has it been since you delivered to a judge $25,000 in cash for the release of a drug dealer? I know that you carried this kind of cash to [a] late Forsyth County Superior Court judge. . . . I have witnesses to that fact. Which judge do you pay bribes to now Rafe, since [that judge] went to hell? Is it [another] Forsyth County judge?

Later, Milum posted a comment in which he taunted his former lawyer:

Rafe, don’t you wish you had given back my three thousand dollar retainer, when I asked you too [sic], because I found out you were helping them set me up? Rafe, do you also remember how I fired your ass, not once but twice before two different judges in Forsyth County courtrooms? That had to sting, didn’t it? How about now Rafe, are you still selling out your clients, as you did me? How much of that dirty drug money did it take for you to buy that big house in Polo Fields, Rafe? . . . I’ll ask again: can you hear those courthouse doors rattling now Rafe Banks Cumming Georgia attorney, who is a drug dealer bribery mule?

On June 16, 2004, Banks’ attorney sent Milum a letter demanding that he retract his statements.  After Milum declined to do so, Banks sued him in Forsyth County Superior Court for libel.

The case went to a jury trial in January 2006.  At the trial, Milum acknowledged that in his previous interrogatories he had named nine people with personal knowledge of the bribery allegations but testified that he was not stating facts when he posted his comments online, but simply giving his opinion.  None of the witnesses, however, testified that they personally knew anything about Banks bribing anyone.

After deliberating for two days, the jury found Milum liable for defamation and awarded Banks $50,000 in general damages, but no punitive damages.  Milum gave up operating the website shortly thereafter.

A Georgia appellate court affirmed the verdict, holding that Banks was properly characterized as a limited-purpose public figure, which meant that Banks had to show that Milum "published false and defamatory statements knowing that they were false or acting in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity."  According to the appellate court, the jury sought clarification  during deliberations as to whether a public figure can be libeled and the court reiterated the definition offered by Milum's attorneys, "that a 'public figure' is one who by reason of notoriety of his achievements or the vigor and success with which he seeks the public's attention has commanded or is in a position to command a substantial amount of public interest."

Update:

3/5/2007 - The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the jury award for $50,000

Larry Giles set up a website called "The Veranda Park News," which covered events in his residential community, aesthetic issues in the neighborhood, and commentary. Allegedly, his site included statements to the effect that the housing developer of his community, Veranda Partners, misspent homeowners' dues, changed landscaping to unfairly enrich itself, and partnered with the City of Orlando in order to gain an unlawful business advantage.

Veranda Partners sent Giles a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that he take down the site. Giles apparently complied with this demand, but Veranda Partners sued him anyway, claiming that the statements on his site were defamatory. Giles's Answer raised numerous defenses, including that his statements were substantially true, his statements were covered by the fair comment privilege, and Veranda Partners' lawsuit was a SLAPP.  Giles also filed a counterclaim for violation of Florida's anti-SLAPP statute (Fla. Stat. § 720.304 (4)) and abuse of process.

Updates:

4/5/2007 - Giles filed a motion for abatement of the action.

4/23/2007 - Veranda Partners filed a motion to dismiss Giles's counterclaims, and Giles filed a motion to disqualify Veranda Partners' attorneys.

4/25/2007 - Giles filed a motion for a protective order relating to discovery matters.

5/15/2007 - The court denied Giles's motion to disqualify Veranda Partners' attorneys.

5/16/2007 - Giles filed a motion for sanctions.

8/21/2007 - Giles filed a motion for summary judgment.

4/18/2008 - Giles filed answer to the Amended Complaint.

5/27/2008 - Court granted Giles's motion to file an amended counterclaim .

6/16/2008 -  Verdanda Partners missed the deadline for filing an answer to the amended counterclaim.

8/15/2008 - Giles filed his second renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.

9/5/2008 -  Veranda Partners filed a motion for final default judgment.

9/11/2008 - Court granted Giles's renewed motion for summary judgment and entered a final default judgment against Veranda Partners on Giles's amended counterclaim.  The court awarded Giles $180,407,69 in treble damages under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, Fla. Stat. § 720.304 (4). 

Frank Vance wrote about Ligonier Ministries and its president, Timothy Dick, on his blog, Contending for the Truth. Statements on Vance's blog allegedly called into question Mr. Dick's ethics and qualifications for his position at Ligonier Ministries.

In August 2006, the Ministries and Mr. Dick sued Vance for defamation in Florida state court. The plaintiffs moved ex parte for a temporary injunction barring Vance from "publishing any false statements about them in written, verbal, or electronic form." The court apparently did not issue the injuction. Unable to find Vance in order to properly serve him, the plaintiffs voluntarily dropped their suit on September 27, 2006.

Tucker Max maintains a website detailing his sexual exploits with women. He had a relationship with former Miss Vermont, Katy Johnson, and put the entire story on his website under the title, the "Miss Vermont Story."

Johnson sued Max in Florida Circuit Court for misappropriation of her publicity rights, invasion of privacy based on publication of private facts, and battery. On May 6, 2003, the judge issued a temporary injunction that forbid Max from

• using, including, or even making reference to, "the name 'Katy Johnson,' 'Katy,' 'Johnson,' or title 'Miss Vermont' in any periodicals or books, and on his website located at www.tuckermax.com";
• "Disclosing any stories, facts or information, notwithstanding its truth, about any intimate or sexual act engaged in by" Katy Johnson; and
• linking to Johnson's website.

Max then removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and filed a motion to dismiss. The temporary injunction expired on June 20, 2003. Johnson voluntarily dismissed the case in July 2003.

Kristen Rhoad posted statements on her blog accusing her ex-husband Phil Haberman of abuse and of falsifying his military experience. Sometime in 2006, Haberman sued Rhoad to have the blog removed after the postings were noted in other blogs and newspapers. The complaint alleged that Rhoad's comments constituted cyberstalking under Florida law (Fla. Stat. § 784.048(d)).

In September 2006, the court issued an injunction, barring Rhoad from contacting Haberman, and additionally ordering her to remove all blogs relating to, and to cease posting about, him. Florida officials apparently threatend to extradite her and charge her with contempt of court if she did not take down the blog. The blog is no longer active.

Update:

9/7/07 - Defendant filed a motion for relief from the injunction. Rhoad has stated that the judge thus far has refused to hear the motion as of 01/15/08.