Scott Brandon, the head of an ad agency, filed a defamation lawsuit in South Carolina state court against Donald Wizeman over statements published on the Myrtle Beach Insider blog.  According to The Sun News, Brandon alleged that Wizeman defamed him by publishing a June 2007 post calling him a "failed lawyer" and criticizing one of his ad agency's campaigns.  Wizeman denied that he was the author of Myrtle Beach Insider, but admitted agreeing with its content.

Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein granted summary judgment in favor of Brandon after a hearing in September 2008.  According to The Sun News, Wizeman was not present at the hearing and said in court filings that he did not receive notice that it was taking place.  At some point in the proceeding, the court ruled that Wizeman would be deemed the author of the disputed blog post after he failed to respond to a discovery request that he admit or deny being the author.  Wizeman, who initially represented himself but later hired a lawyer, maintains that he did not receive the discovery request either.  

After granting summary judgment, Judge Goodstein appointed a "special referee" to determine damages.  In late January 2009, the referee awarded Brandon $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.  

Wizeman filed a notice of appeal in February 2009.

Update: According to Kenneth R. Moss, the attorney who filed the appeal on Mr. Wizeman's behalf, Wizeman and Brandon negotiated a settlement and the appeal was dismissed.

Cyd Duffin, principal of Colony High School in Palmer, Alaska sued MySpace, Inc. and John Doe defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy over the posting of a fake MySpace profile, which falsely depicted her "as a drug-using racist with a sexually transmitted disease who insults disabled students and likes books about pornography, anarchy and the Ku Klux Klan," according to the Anchorage Daily News.  The Anchorage Daily News also reported that Duffin dismissed MySpace from the case after the company agreed to cooperate by turning over records related to the creation of the fake profile.  

UPDATE:

7/14/2009 - Duffin dismissed the suit after two students confessed to authoring the fake profile. Though the two students were punished, Duffin did not disclose the severity of their punishment.

Self-published author Jeffrey Hammer sued Amazon.com in New York state court (later removed to federal court by Amazon) alleging libel, defamation, antitrust violations, breach of contract, and copyright violations, among others things.  The dispute revolved around negative reviews of Hammer's books posted on Amazon.com by reviewer Anthony Trendl and Amazon's failure to remove Trendl as a reviewer.  Before filing suit against Amazon, Hammer sued Trendl directly, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit.  (For details, see our database entry, Hammer v. Trendl.) 

Hammer's complaint claimed that Amazon was liable for publishing Trendl's allegedly defamatory statements, that Amazon violated his copyright by displaying a graphic depicting Plaintiff's book cover, and that Amazon breached its contract with him and otherwise violated his rights by removing his books from the site and refusing to do further business with him. 

Amazon moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Hammer's allegations failed to state a claim and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230") protected it from liability for publishing Trendl's statements. Amazon also moved the court for a permanent injunction to prevent Hammer from filing future lawsuits against it.

The court granted Amazon's motion to dismiss and partially granted its motion for a permanent injunction against Hammer.  The court ruled that Trendl's comments were statements of opinion that could not support a defamation claim.  The court dismissed the copyright claim, finding that Amazon's use of the book graphic either involved no copying, or alternatively, was authorized by Hammer.  The court found that Amazon was within its contract rights terminating its relationship with Hammer.  The court did not reach Amazon's Section 230 argument.

The court granted an injunction against Hammer preventing him from commencing any action against Amazon in federal court relating to reviews of his books or Amazon's refusal to do business with him.  

In early 2002, self-published author Jeffrey Hammer sued Anthony Trendl in federal court in New York alleging violations of federal copyright law and defamation for negative reviews posted on Amazon about Hammer's books.  Hammer also sought a temporary restraining order preventing Trendl from posting any further comments on Hammer's books on the internet, enjoining Amazon from removing his books from its website, and directing Amazon to remove the negative comments.

The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order.  It found that Trendl's comments were pure opinion and therefore protected speech and that there was no evidence that Trendl copied any of the work.  The court also ruled that Amazon could not be subjected to an injunction because it was not a party to the case, despite Hammer's argument that Amazon provided Trendl with an attorney.

The court also granted Trendl's motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Later, the court instituted a special procedure that Hammer had to follow if he wanted to file any papers in connection to the case because of the high number of motions he filed (over 50).  After receiving this order, Hammer continued filing motions and filed a lawsuit against Amazon.  The court then issued an order preventing him from filing any papers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York without advance permission from the court.  Hammer's appeals to the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court were denied.  

On March 4, 2009, Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively "Monex"), two companies in the precious metals business, filed a lawsuit suit against Jason Gilliam, Richard Gilliam, and Steven Bowman for publishing allegedly defamatory statements on the website MonexFRAUD.com and attempting to extort money from Monex.  Monex initially sued in California state court, but the Gilliams removed the case to federal court.

In its complaint, Monex claims that the Gilliams and Bowman threatened to "continue to libel Monex on their website, . . . share information with government regulators, and . . . interfere with Monex's relationships with investors and banks" unless the company paid them $15 million dollars.  According the complaint, the defendants called Monex's president a "ruthless sociopath" and the firm's sales pitch "flat-out lies," in addition to other comments.  Monex alleges that the defendants made these false statements on MonexFRAUD.com and in comments posted on other websites, including YouTube and Digg.

In addition to defamation and extortion, Monex's complaint alleges cyberpiracy, unfair competition, racketeering, interference with contract, attempted conversion, trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade secret misappropriation. The Gilliams, father and son, allegedly lost approximately $32,000 with Monex.  On March 16, Jason Gilliam filed counter claims against Monex, including racketeering and breach of fiduciary duties.

On March 24, 2009, a federal court in California granted Monex's request for a temporary restraining order against the Gilliams and Bowman, expiring on April 7, 2009. The temporary restraining order prohibits them from taking any steps to extort money from Monex by (1) threatening to publish information about Monex on any forum or share information about Monex with third parties, or (2) threatening to defame Monex or its employees.  The order also barred them from retaining, disclosing, or using any Monex trade secret or proprietary information. 

The court also ordered the Gilliams and Bowman to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, continuing the terms of the temporary restraining order until judgment or dismissal.  If granted, the preliminary injunction would also bar the defendants from "publishing or republishing any negative statements about Monex on any website" and require them to "remove, from any website over which they have sufficient control, all negative material about Monex that they have published or republished there, and to stop using the word MonexFRAUD."  It would also bar them from operating the MonexFRAUD website or any "other websites critical of Monex."  

Update:

04/09/09 -The court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from (1) making any efforts to extort money from Monex by threatening to publish or share information about Monex or defame Monex or its employees; (2) operating www.MonexFRAUD.com or any other website using the Monex name in combination with any modifier that implies illegal, unlawful or unethical conduct; (3) publishing or republishing on any website, including www.MonexFRAUD.com, any statement that "Monex does not have title to or the ability to deliver precious metals sold under contract to any Monex customer; that Monex was expelled from the National Futures Association for fraud; that Monex operates a boiler room; that Monex violates any federal or state statutes regulating the business operations of Monex; that Monex has been charged by the Internal Revenue Service with tax evasion; and that Monex fails to accurately disclose to customers account and trading terms (collectively "Prohibited Statements"); (4) disclosing, using, or retaining any trade secret documentation or other proprietary information belonging to Monex.  The injunction also requires the defendants to remove all previously published Prohibited Statements within 24 hours.  It does not prohibit the defendants from (a) making statements regarding their own business dealings with Monex, including losses they have sustained; or (b) communicating with any governmental entity concerning matters within the scope of that entity's legislative, administrative, or regulatory responsibilities.

05/07/2009- Monex filed an amended complaint in district court. 

Korbel Champagne Cellars filed a John Doe lawsuit against 10 anonymous defendants. The defamation suit, filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, complains about a number of postings on a craigslist.org forum accusing Korbel of punishing employees who reported sexual harassment, plotting to cut down redwood forests on its property, and bribing law enforcement and court authorities.  Korbel contends that these accusations are false and have injured its reputation.

Korbel determined that some of the anonymous posters used Comcast's internet services.  At a March 4 hearing, Korbel requested that Judge Nadler order Comcast to turn over their names. According to Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson, Comcast complies with such orders, but only after notifying its customers that their identities are being sought. This enables posters to defend their anonymity. "Our policy is to give our customer notice and sufficient time to decide whether to contest the disclosure," Johnson told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

No opposition appeared to challenge Korbel's request, and Judge Nadler issued the order, but stayed its operation to give the posters an opportunity to seek a protective order.  Judge Nadler ordered Comcast to notify the affected subscribers of the discovery request within one week and gave the subscribers one month to take action.

The following is a user-submitted description:

Mortgage lender Mortgage Specialists filed a petition for injunctive relief against Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, a website that reports and publishes stories concerning the US housing-finance sector.  In one story, Implode Explode covered Mortgage Specialists, a New Hampshire corporation.  As part of the story, Implode Explode posted a .pdf copy of a document it received from an anonymous source, detailing Mortgage Specialists' loan volume in recent years.  Mortgage Specialists sued Implode Explode seeking an order compelling Implode Explode to refrain from posting the document, to disclose the identity of the source of the document, to produce all other documents obtained from the same source, and to disclose the identity of an anonymous poster who commented on the article about Mortgage Specialists and allegedly made defamatory statements.

The trial court rejected Implode Explode's arguments on personal jurisdiction and on the merits, granting all of Mortgage Specialists' requests for relief.  Implode Explode has a filed a motion to stay the injunctive order pending appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  Questions on appeal would involve: the right to publish under the New York Times standard; the protection of sources under the New Hampshire qualified reporter's privilege; the application of the test for injunctive relief where the petitioner's claims are against a third party and not the respondent; and the application of the Dendrite Test to the compelled disclosure of anonymous posters on websites.

Update:

4/7/09 - Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. filed a notice of appeal from Justice McHugh's order.

4/14/2009 - Justice McHugh stayed most of his order pending pending appeal.

6/22/2009 - Citizen Media Law Project and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted amicus brief in N.H. Supreme Court. ML-Implode filed its appellant's brief.

7/22/2009 - Mortgage Specialists filed its appellee's brief.

8/6/2009 - Implode-Explode filed its reply brief.

On March 4, 2009, Randall Palazzo, a custom home builder in Oregon, sued the Willamette Week, a local newspapaper that also publishes a website, for defamation.  According to OregonLive, several editors and staffers, including Ian Gillingham, the paper's web editor, were also named as defendants. 

The lawsuit concerns a March 12, 2008 story in the paper's "Rogue of the Week" column, which reported neighborhood complaints about rude and aggressive behavior by Palazzo and his employees.  The Willamette Week posted a correction to the original article and let Palazzo Custom Homes publish a lengthy response after the lawsuit was filed, according to Palazzo's attorney (see comment below).

OregonLive reports that the complaint seeks to hold the Willamette Week liable for publishing defamatory user comments, despite the obstacle to such a claim posed by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

On February 20th, 2008, the Mitans filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against eight individuals located throughout the U.S. and Vitramax Group, Inc., alleging libel and slander.  The Mitans' complaint claims that Emory and Carol Davis created a website called the "Mitan Alert" in October of 1999, and that a U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously found the website to be defamatory and ordered them "to cease and desist publication of the website, to remove it from viewing on the Internet, and never to publish the website again." 

The complaint further alleges that the Davises sent printed pages of the website to the other defendants via fascimile, and that the other defendants then transmitted those printed pages to third parties.  The Mitans do not identify any specific allegedly defamatory statements, but allege that the web pages "tend to prejudice [them] in their trade, calling and/or profession since the information damages [their] reputation for honesty, integrity, and morality."

Ronald Rash, Achim Neumann, Craig Cullinane, Linda Cullinane, and Thomas F. Cullinane, Jr., submitted motions to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Cullinanes also argued that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred the claims against them because the Mitans only alleged that they "received, faxed or discussed or discussed the content of a website that [they] did not author, edit or create."

The court granted the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Rash, Neumann, and the Cullinanes did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Kentucky.  The court rejected the Mitans' argument that receiving information from Kentucky was sufficient to confer jurisdiction.  The court did not reach the Cullinanes' section 230 argument.

The case is ongoing against Carol and Emory Davis and Vitramax. They filed an answer and counterclaims alleging abuse of process in June 2008.

In June of 2005, Robert Noiseux sued Donna and Edward Avila, Jennifer Hart, and Raymond Sulich after statements about him appeared on Canterbury Web: Canterbury's Un-Official Town Forum.  According to the complaint, the Avilas owned and operated the website, and Hart and Sulich served as administrators.  Noiseux alleged that Sulich and Donna Avila defamed him by "caus[ing] to be published" critical statements about him on the forum.  He alleged that the remaining defendants were liable by virtue of their responsibility to monitor website content.  

After several months, Noiseux dropped the suit against the Avilas and Jennifer Hart.  Sulich, the other site administrator and alleged poster, settled for part of Noiseux's legal fees (unspecified) and an apology.