Harold King runs the forum site "McAlester Watercooler," which he describes as a forum for citizens of McAlester, Oklahoma to "voice their views about the on-going City events." In August 2005, former state senator Gene Stipe filed a police report alleging that King had published false information about Stipe and his family on the forum (the precise nature of the statements was not disclosed).

The police passed Stipe's complaint and evidence on to the local district attorney, but the district attorney did not pursue criminal charges.

Oklahoma has a criminal libel statute, making libel "punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one (1) year, or by fine not exceeing One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both." 21 Okla. Stat. § 773. "Libel" is defined as "a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends." 21 Okla. Stat. § 771.

In the fall of 1998, Miskin enrolled in a University of North Dakota (UND) physics class taught by Professor John Wagner. Wagner claims that Miskin sent him harassing and sexually explicit email messages and made false statements about him professionally and personally. After UND disciplinary proceedings against Miskin, Wagner filed suit in North Dakota state court accusing Miskin of libel, slander, and intentional interference with a business relationship.

After litigation commenced, Miskin published additional statements about Wagner, his trial attorney, and the litigation on her website (www.undnews.com). These statements included an allegation that Wagner had harassed Miskin with sexually provocative phone calls. Wagner amended his complaint to include claims based on these statements on the Internet. Wagner won a $3,000,000 jury verdict, and the Supreme Court of North Dakota upheld the verdict. Wagner v. Miskin, 660 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1154 (2004).

Patrick Atkinson is the founder and executive director of the God's Child Project, a charitable organization that provides health and medical care, food, and education to children in Guatamala. Dr. James McLaughlin and Roberta McLaughlin volunteered for the God's Child Project from July 1997 to March 1998, at which time they were terminated from their volunteer positions. After their dismissal, the McLaughlins made a number of allegations against Atkinson with Guatamalan authorities.

According to court filings, the McLaughlins then returned to the United States and began emailing the Project's board members and supporters claiming that they had been improperly terminated and questioning Atkinson's ethics and character. They subsequently sent additional emails claiming that Atkinson had sexually abused two boys and issued a press release claiming that Atkinson had been arrested on chages of sexual abuse.

The McLaughlins also created a website called "Friends of Guatemalan Children" in November 1998.  According to court filings, they allegedly made statements on the website that suggested that Atkinson misued funds, lied, molested children, and committed criminal acts in Guatamala and the United States, all in connection with Atkinson's previous work for Covenant House, another charitable organization that operated in Guatamala. The McLaughlins also contacted the North Dakota Attorney General's Office concering Atkinson and the Project and repeated their previous accusations of criminal conduct.

In an effort to resolve the present dispute, Atkinson and the God’s Child Project attempted to contact the McLaughlins in October of 2002, to request that they retract their website. At the time the McLaughlins received notice of the letter they were traveling in Argentina and Brazil. On November 7, 2002, an attorney responded on behalf of the McLaughlins and asked what portions of the website were false or misleading. On February 24, 2003, an attorney for Atkinson responded and included a copy of Atkinson’s unfiled complaint.

In July 2003, Atkinson sued the McLaughlins in federal court in North Dakota for defamation and interference with business relations. The McLaughlins moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court denied the motion in November 2004, holding that it had personal jurisdiction over them. The McLaughlins later filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the two-year statute of limitations on defamation claims barred Atkinson's lawsuit.

In November 2006, the court ruled on the McLaughlin's motion for summary judgment, holding that the statute of limitations for a defamation claim begins to run from the day that defamatory statements are published to a website, and that making minor changes or updates to material on a website does not constitute a second publication of the defamatory statements. See Atkinson v. McLaughlin, No. 1:03-cv-091, slip op., at 20-22, 26-27 (D. N.D. Nov. 28, 2006).

The court concluded that Atkinson's claims based on statements made before July 28, 2001 were time barred. The court determined, however, that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the McLaughlin's made defamatory statements after that time. See id. at 31-32.

In May 2007, the parties settled the lawsuit, and Atkinson voluntarily dismissed the action.  The Friends of Guatemalan Children website appears to have been taken down as a result of the settlement. The homepage states:

This website and all of the content contained herein has been removed as part of an agreement resulting from a federal lawsuit alleging that the site contained false and misleading information about the individuals and organizations mentioned on this site.  This action is the result of successfull legal action taken by The GOD'S CHILD Project and Patrick Atkinson against the former owners of this web-site.

James Sollami, the former Town Supervisor of Cornwall, New York, sued blogger Tom Sheppard for libel in New York state court in 2004. Sheppard operates a website called "Cornball-Local.com," which deals with local politics. Sollami objected to 27 statements made on the blog, which, according to the RecordOnline.com, accused Sollami of "a laundry list of misdeeds involving town business."

The trial judge granted Sheppard's motion to dismiss in April 2004, concluding that the statements at issue were statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment. Sollami appealed, and the New York apellate court reversed the dismissal as to seven statements. The appellate court concluded that these statements were capable of a defamatory meaning and that a jury could conclude that they contained underlying assertions of fact. Sollami v. Shepphard, 799 N.Y.S.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). The appellate court sent the case back to the lower court for trial.

Trial commenced in May 2007, but the judge declared a mistrial weeks later when Sollami's lawyer became incapacitated due to a back injury. Retrial is pending.

Update:

4/11/2008 - Jury selection began for a new trial.

Penn Warranty contracts with individuals to provide service warranties on used cars. On May 20, 2000, Penn Warranty provided DeGiovanni a "standard warranty" for a used truck in New Jersey, where he lived at the time. DeGiovanni filed a claim under the service contract, which Penn Warranty denied. Giovanni brought a breach of contract lawsuit in small claims court in New Jersey, and the case settled out of court for $2500. He then created a "gripe site," on which he claimed that Penn Warranty engaged in deceptive business practices. The site contained some generally negative comments about the car service warranty industry, the auto insurance industry, and New Jersey judges. More importantly, the gripe site also contained statements that Penn Warranty "cleverly" interprets its standard contracts, that it is a "blatantly dishonest company," that it is a "crooked company," that it "has been ripping of ripping off its contract holders for quite a while," and that it had committed fraud.

Before publishing the site on the web, DeGiovanni contacted Penn Warranty and stated that he would publish the website and expose the company's unfair practices unless it "did the right thing." Penn Warranty did not concede to DeGiovanni's "demands," and he pubished the site. DeGiovanni also sent the content of the site to Penn Warranty's employees.

Penn Warranty sued in New York state court, alleging defamation, trade libel, harrasment, extortion and coercion, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, cybersquatting, and violations of RICO. On DeGiovanni's motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the defamation and trade libel claims, holding that the statements on DeGiovanni's website were statements of personal opinion protected by the First Amendment. The court dismissed the intentional interference with economic advantage claim because Penn Warranty offered no evidence of any customer that did not do business with it as a result of DeGiovanni's site. The court dismissed the extortion/harassment/coercion claim, holding that the defendant could not be held liable for threatening to do something he had a right to do -- to express his constitutionally protected opinions. It dismissed Penn Warranty's trademark claim, which revolved around DeGiovanni's use of a domain name similar to the domain name of Penn Warranty's website, because DeGiovanni's use of the mark was not commercial and because the domain names were not confusingly similar. Finally, it dismissed the RICO claims for failure to provide any evidence of an enterprise, among other grounds. See Penn Warranty Corp. v. DiGiovanni, 810 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005).

A New York news station broadcast a report on Citywide Sewer & Drain focusing on customer complaints. Angelo Carusone, who had worked a summer job at Citywide, made comments on his blog under the title, "Citywide Really Is Shittywide." Citywide sued Carusone and his father, who worked at Citywide, for defamation. In September 2006, the New York Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the statements on Carusone's blog were statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment.

In August 2005, Software Development and Investment of Nevada ("Software Development"), a Nevada corporation in the business of "internet advertising and internet placement optimization" under the name Traffic-Power.com, sued Aaron Wall and an unknown number of anonymous users of Wall's blog for libel and misappropriation of trade secrets. At the time of the suit, Wall was a Pennsylvania resident and a blogger who wrote about search engine optimization on his blog, "SEO Book.com."

According to Software Development's complaint in Nevada state court, a number of unknown persons disseminated information about its marketing strategy and solicitation procedures over the internet. These unknown persons allegedly posted this proprietary information on Wall's blog and other "publicly available areas of the internet."

The complaint also alleged that Wall and his anonymous co-defendants published false and defamatory statements about it and its business over the internet. The complaint did not specify any statements, but an opinion from the federal district court during the litigation identified the following statements that Software Development contended were defamatory:

• a statement that Software Development is among a group of people that Wall considered "fraudsters and hucksters";
• a statement that Software Development's website had been "banned by the search engines";
• a statement that Software Development used "idiotic high pressure salesmen" to sell its "shit services";
• a statement that Software Development's services "suck";
• a statement that people who buy Software Development's services get "screwed"; and
• a statement that Wall would "need to shower at least 6 times a day" if he worked for "a company as dirty" as Software Development.

Wall also allegedly linked to other sites that made disparaging comments about Software Development. Software Dev. & Inv. v. Wall, No. 2:05-cv-01109, slip op., at 2 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2006).

In September 2005, Wall removed the lawsuit to federal court. He later moved to dismiss, and the federal court dismissed the action in February 2006, holding that it had no personal jurisdiction over Wall. Software Dev. & Inv. v. Wall, No. 2:05-cv-01109, slip op. (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2006).

In its order, the court concluded, among other things, that Wall's blog was "passive" despite the ability of reader's to post comments. Id. at 3. The determination of a website's "passive" or "active" character is important in the legal analysis because the more "active" a site is with respect to a state's citizens, the more justification there is for that state to assert personal jurisdiction over it. The court also concluded that there was no evidence that Wall had "expressly aimed the offensive communications at the Sate of Nevada, knowing that the communications would cause harm to Plaintiff in Nevada." Id. at 7. The court never reached the CDA 230 issue.

In its order dismissing the case, the court gave Software Development permission to file an amended complaint, but Software Development did not do so, and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution in June 2007.

Gregerson is a photographer who maintains a website containing his professional photographs. Vilana Financial, Inc. used two of Gregerson's pictures without permission in phone-book and web advertisements, and print advertisements in a local Russian-language newspaper. Gregerson discovered Vilana's use of his photographs and contacted the company asking for compensation. Vilana refused, claiming that it purchased the photographs from a third party (neither party was able to locate this third party during the subsequent litigation).

Gregerson devoted a portion of his website to a discussion of the disagreement over the photographs. On it, he claimed that Andrew Vilenchik had published two of his photos without permission in a series of ads for Vilana. Along with the text, Gregerson posted a photograph of Vilenchik.

On October 4, 2005, Vilenchik's attorney sent Gregerson a letter demanding that the webpage be removed or he would file a lawsuit for defamation.

Vilana initially sued Gregerson for defamation in Minnesota state court on October 24, 2005. Gregerson then filed suit against Vilana and Vilenchik in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 27, 2006, claiming copyright infringement. The Vilana state-court action was removed and consolidated with the federal action, and Vilana and Vilenchik counterclaimed for deceptive trade practices, trademark infringement (including cybersquatting), interference with business and contractual relationships, appropriation, and unjust enrichment. The defendants abandoned the defamation claim.

On August 15, 2006, the federal district court denied Vilana and Vilenchik's motion to dismiss the copyright claim and their motion to remand the state-law claims.

On September 18, 2006, Gregerson moved to dismiss the plaintiff's counterclaims against him, arguing that the counterclaims violated Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute (Minn. Stat. § 554.01-05). The court denied the motion on November 17, 2006. Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc., 446 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1059 (D. Minn. 2006).

On August 31, 2007, the district court granted Vilenchik's motion for summary judgment, holding that he could not be held liable in his personal capacity for Vilana's corporate actions. The federal district court granted partial summary judgment for Gregerson on his copyright claim against Vilana, holding that there was no triable issue of fact regarding Vilana's infringement of Gregerson's exclusive rights in his photographs, but reserving the issue of damages for trial. It also granted summary judgment for Gregerson on Vilana's counterclaim for trademark infringement and cybersquatting, holding that Gregerson's use of Vilana's trademarks as website metatags did not create a likelihood of confusion, and that Vilana failed to establish that Gregerson had a bad faith intent to profit by using its trademarks in a domain name. Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc., Civil No. 06-1164, 2007 WL 2509718 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2007).

Minnesota law provides a claim for deceptive trade practices when a person, in the course of a business, vocation or occupation, disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representations of fact. The federal district court denied summary judgment to Gregerson on Vilana's deceptive trade practices counterclaim, find that there was evidence that Gregerson had posted comments on his website, and allowed others to post comments, indicating that the defendants were thieves, members of the Russian mafia, and actively engaged in fraudulent business practices and predatory lending. Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc., Civil No. 06-1164, 2007 WL 2509718 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2007).

The court also denied Gregerson's motion for summary judgment on the interference with business and contractual relationship and appropriation of likeness counterclaims. Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc., Civil No. 06-1164, 2007 WL 2509718 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2007).

Updates:

8/15/2006 - The federal district court denied Vilana and Vilenchik's motion to dismiss Gregerson's copyright claim.

11/17/2006 -The federal district court denied Gregerson's motion to dismiss Vilana and Vilenchik's counterclaims based on Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute.

8/31/2007 - The federal district court granted summary judgment for Vilenchik, case dismissed as to him;

8/31/2007 - The federal district court granted partial summary judgment for Gregerson on his copyright claim and on Vilana's counterclaim for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and unjust enrichment, and denied Gregerson summary judgment on the the deceptive trade practices, interference with business and contractual relationships, and appropriation of likeness counterclaims.

2/15/2008- After a bench trial, the court awarded Gregerson $19,462 on his copyright claim and denied all counterclaims against him.

Lance Dutson operates a blog, the "Maine Web Report." Beginning in February 2006, he published a series of posts that were critical of the Maine Department of Tourism and Warren Kremer Paino Advertising LLC ("Warren Kremer"), an advertising agency that had worked on a Maine tourism campaign. In these posts, Dutson allegedly made statements to the effect that (1) Warren Kremer was violating Maine law by using state funds to promote Maine tourism to people inside Maine; (2) Warren Kremer expended state tourism funds for the purpose of returning internet search results for non-tourism activity, such as pornography and pedophilia; (3) Warren Kremer was "pissing away" Maine tax money; and (4) Warren Kremer had hired a subcontractor who had a conflict of interest. Dutson also allegedly posted "copyrighted material" owned by Warren Kremer (the specific material was not identified in Warren Kremer's complaint).

In April 2006, Warren Kremer sued Dutson in federal court in Maine for defamation, copyright infringement, and trade libel. Warren Kremer voluntarily dismissed the suit after a month, after facing extensive criticism on blogs and websites.

Anthony and Sheri Huff, a Kentucky businessman and his wife, sued Mark Nickolas, a political blogger, for defamation after he implied in a blog post that they bought dismissal of an alleged felony indictment by contributing to the Kentucky Republican Party and Republican candidates.

No details on the lawsuit are available, but it appears that Nickolas removed the allegedly defamatory post, and that the suit is no longer pending.