Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals v. Does [1]

Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals ("HEPH") sued several anonymous users of a Yahoo! forum in California state court for defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference after the posters criticized the company and its management on the Yahoo! Message Board [2] devoted to the company.

According to filings in the case, HEPH identified several statements it claims were defamatory, including the following post by Gpalcus:

Nay Say Not?
by: gpalcus (M/Cell Block 5) 11/3/00 10:40 am
Msg: 15762 of 16806

This company has plainly and simply misserved its investors. Whatever secret wizardry the man/men/monkeys behind the curtain are doing, the value of our investment has not been attended with the same (if only purported) vigor. I don't know a god-damned thing that this company has perfected solidly except a creeping but constant value seep. Is it simply millennial blue smoke and mirrors; propped up by thrice rejected science.... OR rather, is it revolutionary science hindered by an extremely poorly constructed public face and the business acumen of infected macaques.... Either way, investors dollars have been poorly served - by veiled fraud or by incompetance. Certainly, with 'the goods' - even at a preliminary stage - a worthwhile business model should be able to at least find a price support level... IT SHOULD BE ONE OF THE COMPANY's PRIORITIES!

"Enough hyperbole! Enough whispered promise! Enough waiting for firmamnet".... that's what the market has been saying. ENOUGH DISDAIN FOR YOUR INVESTORS - that's my personal rant....

Compl. ¶¶ 12k, 16.  As to a statement by Dickie13, the complaint quotes him or her as stating: "Once again, in my opinion, the Public Relations Department of Hollis-Eden couldn't promote Mickey Mouse into Disneyland." Compl. ¶ 12d.

HEPH also subpoenaed Yahoo! to reveal the identities of the anonymous posters. Upon being notified of the subpoena by Yahoo!, defendants Gpalcus and Dickie13 filed a motion to strike [3] HEPH's claims under California's anti-SLAPP law [4] and to quash the subpoena it had issued to Yahoo!. 

On March 20, 2001, the court granted the motion [5], finding that HEPH failed to show a sufficient likelihood of success on its claim because the defendants' statements were merely statements of opinion and could not be deemed defamatory.  HEPH appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals, but later withdrew its appeal before the court issued a decision.