After a dispute arose about Flora Nicolazzo's failure to make payments to Dennis Yoingco for the sale of a bulldog, Yoingco allegedly posted "websites and other internet messages and postings defaming [Flora and Robert Nicolazzo], including a copy of her driver's license and a mock wanted poster later edited to say 'Captured.'"  The Nicolazzos filed a lawsuit in Ohio State Court, claiming defamation, false light invasion of privacy, abuse of process, telecommunications and telephone harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

Yoingco filed a motion to dismiss, and the court denied the motion with regard to each of the Nicolazzo's claims, except the claims for telecommunications and telephone harassment, which the court dismissed.  See Nicolazzo v. Yoingco, 898 N.E.2d 94 (Ohio Ct. Cm. Pls. 2007). The case went to trial in November 2007, and the jury returned a judgment in favor of Yoingco. 

In March 2008, Lawrence Sinclair sued three pseudonymous Internet users -- TubeSockTedD, mzmolly, and Owningliars -- for defamation in federal district court in the District of Columbia. 

In late 2007/early 2008, Sinclair published a YouTube video and blog claiming that he had engaged in sexual activities and done drugs with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. This sparked a vociferous response from many Internet users, who criticized Sinclair and challenged his claims about Obama. 

According to court documents, one such Internet user, "TubeSockTedD," allegedly posted a video on YouTube that stated "Larry Sinclair is Spreading Lies About Obama."  Days later, another Internet user going by "Owningliars" allegedly posted a statement on Digg.com, linking back to an unspecified video, urging readers to watch it as "proof" that Sinclair was lying, and stating that Sinclair was in a mental hospital when he claimed to have met Obama.  Later still, another Internet user going by "mzmolly" allegedly posted a comment on a forum on Democratic Underground, repeating the claim that Sinclair was a former mental patient.

After Sinclair filed suit, he subpoenaed Democratic Underground, Google, and Digg seeking identifying information about the pseudonymous defendants.  Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, representing both mzmolly and Democratic Underground, objected to the subpoena in a strongly worded letter. Sinclair then moved to compel Democratic Underground to disclose mzmolly's identity, and both mzmolly and Democratic Underground opposed the motion to compel, arguing that First Amendment protection for anonymous speech shielded mzmolly's identity from disclosure under the circumstances. 

In February 2009, the district court issued an opinion denying the motion to compel and dismissing the complaint in its entirety.  The court held that Sinclair was not permitted to compel the identification of the three pseudonymous defendants because he could not meet the heightened standard required by the First Amendment.

Specifically, the court held that Sinclair's complaint was facially invalid because it did not plead facts necessary to establish the court's subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the pseudonymous defendants.  In addition, the court ruled that Sinclair's defamation claims failed as a matter of law because he did not plead either actual malice or special damages, and because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected mzmolly and Owningliars for "simply summarizing and reporting information obtained from" a third party.

Although it quashed the subpoena and dismissed the complaint, the district court refused to award mzmolly and Democratic Underground sanctions against Sinclair because of the novel areas of law involved. 

In late October 2008, Colorado authorities charged Robert Ezekiel Tafoya with one count of criminal libel.  According to the Pueblo Chieftan: 

"The investigation showed that the defendant pasted pictures of the face of one person onto the body of other persons and published or disseminated the pictures electronically to others," Thiebaut [the District Attorney] said. "We believe it impeached the reputation (of his accuser) and those pictures were being used to ridicule her." Thiebaut would not elaborate on the relationship between Tafoya and his accuser, or what the doctored photos depicted, except to say that they cast Tafoya's accuser "in a compromising position."

Actress Christianne Carafano (stage name Chase Masterson) sued Matchmaker.com, an internet dating site, after a user created a fake profile using Masterson's name, address, telephone number, and pictures.  

Matchmaker.com is an internet dating site that allows members to post their own profiles and search a database of other members' profiles.  Members fill out a  questionnaire, and their answers become part of their profile.  Matchmaker.com does not seek to verify the identity of  members or the accuracy of the profiles.  In addition, all members must agree to the Matchmaker Disclaimer, which prohibits users from putting their home address, e-mail address, or telephone number in their profile.

An anonymous individual created a Matchmaker.com profile under the name "Chase529."  The profile listed Carafano's home address and e-mail address, and included four pictures of her.  Among other things, the answers to the questionnaire indicated that the user was "looking for a one night stand" and "might be persuaded to have a homosexual experience."   Carafano claims that she received obscene phone calls and e-mails as a result of the profile.   

After learning about the profile, Carafano contacted the police.  Two days later, Carafano's website manager contacted Matchmaker.com.  Matchmaker.com removed Chase529's profile from its system.   Carafano subsequently sued Matchmaker.com and its corporate successors (Metrosplash.com and Lycos Inc.) for defamation, invasion of privacy through publication of private facts, violation of the right of publicity, and negligence.

Matchmaker.com claimed that it was immune from liability because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230").  Section 230 states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."    Carafano argued that Matchmaker.com was not simply a passive service, but actually provided content since it supplied the multiple-choice questionnaire used to create profiles. 

The district court rejected Matchmaker.com's argument based on Section 230, finding that it was partly responsible for providing profile content.  The court nevertheless granted summary judgment to the defendants because Carafano had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact for essential elements of her claims.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, but on different grounds. It held that Section 230 immunized the defendants because "Matchmaker cannot be considered an 'information content provider' under the statute because no profile has any content until a user actively creates it."  

Sheldon H. Pressler, a principal of the law firm Pressler & Pressler LLP, sued Scott Mills, publisher of the CAIPNJ blog, for defamation in New Jersey state court.  The complaint also named CAIPNJ.org and CAIPNJRadio as defendants.  Pressler alleges that Mills made false and defamatory statements on his blog and Internet radio show about Pressler and his business activities.  Pressler has moved the court for an order permanently enjoining the defendants from libeling him, requiring them to publish a retraction on the first page of the CAIPNJ.org website, and to publicly retract them during radio broadcasts.

Update:

2/5/2009 - The court set a hearing date of March 13, 2009 for a hearing on Pressler's request for a permanent injunction, but denied Pressler's request for a temporary restraint on Mills's publishing activities.

3/12/2009 - Mills filed an answer and counterclaims.

3/13/2009 -- The court denied Pressler's request for an injunction.