Sometime in 2007, statements appeared on Harold King's forum site, "McAlister Watercooler," questioning the legality of Steve Covington's payday loan business and linking him to a former State Senator who had pled guilty to charges of perjury, conspiracy to obstruct a Federal Election Commission investigation, and conspiracy to violate the Federal Election Commission Act.

In June 2007, Covington sued King and an undefined number of anonymous users of the forum for libel in Oklahoma state court. Covington sought a temporary restraining order against the forum, but the record is unclear as to the precise nature of the requested restraining order (i.e., to remove specific content, take down the site, or restrain future statements). Covington also moved for an order granting expedited discovery (presumably, discovery of the unknown defendants' identities). The court denied Covington's motion for a temporary restraining order in June 2007. The status of Covington's discovery request is unclear.

Update:

6/14/2007 - King filed a motion to dismiss.

3/28/2008 - Court granted King's motion to dismiss.

Todd Hollis objected to the description posted about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a website that allows women to post about men and warn other women about them. Mr. Hollis sued Tasha Joseph/Cunningham, the operator of the website, alleging defamation in Pennsylvania state court, after she refused to remove the posts.

According to the initial complaint, four separate profiles were created by anonymous users of the site, which allegedly falsely claimed that Hollis had multiple children and had herpes; was "gay" or "bi"; had given the user an STD; and that he "wears dirty clothes," "complains about paying child support", and that his "crib is a dump."  (Compl. ¶ 20, 25-26, 30, 34.)  Hollis claims to have complained to Joseph/Cunningham, who refused to remove the profiles.  (Compl. ¶ 23.)  

Hollis sued Joseph/Cunningham, the Cavelle Company, Inc. (the registrant for dontdatehimgirl.com), and three individuals who he claims were responsible for the false profiles for defamation, seeking $50,000 in actual damages plus punitive damages.

Joseph and the Cavelle Company moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Pennsylvania court granted this motion with respect to Joseph/Cunningham, a resident of Florida, and the Cavelle Company.  Hollis filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Florida on November 29, 2007.

On May 10, 2007, a user on the FreeRepublic forum posted that he had heard on a XM Satellite Radio talk show that DNC Chairman Howard Dean had called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius asking her to politicize the recovery effort from a tornado in Greensburg, Kansas, by dragging her feet on requesting federal aid and then blaming the lack of response on President Bush.

That same day, the DNC, through counsel, sent a cease-and-desist email to the webmaster of FreeRepublic. The email complained that FreeRepublic had not only repeated the defamatory statements of the radio show host, but indicated that the host's source was "extremely reliable and in a position that would give him direct knowledge of these revelations." The email asserted that the statements were "false and defamatory," "libelous and slanderous," and "clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC’s operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds." The email demanded that FreeRepublic remove the defamatory statements and post a prominent retraction.

The FreeRepublic did not remove the statements, and there is no indication that the DNC has taken any further action.

Incidentally, the DNC also sent a cease-and-desist letter to XM Satellite Radio, complaining about the original radio show broadcast. XM posted audio clips of the show on its website, but it does not appear that the DNC sent them a cease-and-desist letter in regard to that posting.

The parents of a child who was victimized by an online pornography group filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! alleging that it knowingly hosted illegal child pornography on the "Candyman" Yahoo! Group. The plaintiffs sued both the moderator of that "e-group" (who was criminally convicted and imprisoned for his involvement) and Yahoo!

On December 27, 2006, the district court dismissed the case aginst both defendants. The court applied the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. sec. 230) and stated that immunity for service providers is not lost when the conduct in question is a criminal act.

Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, an unknown person posted messages on an AOL bulletin board purporting to offer for sale t-shirts and other items which supported or made light of the bombing in Oklahoma City. The messages contained Kenneth Zeran’s first name and phone number.

After Zeran received outraged calls and death threats, he complained to AOL, which removed the postings but did not post a retraction. Similar messages continued to appear on AOL for several weeks despite Zeran’s request that AOL block such messages.

Zeran originally filed negligence and defamation claims in Oklahoma, claiming that AOL was responsible for the postings. AOL moved to have the suit transferred to Virginia, where it was decided.

On March 27, 2007, the district court granted AOL's motion to dismiss. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997).

On November 12, 1997, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on appeal. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 328 (4th Cir. 1997). The Court of Appeals based its ruling on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which states: "No 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."

The Court of Appeals also rejected Zeran's argument that Section 230 should not apply in this case because the messages at issue had been posted before the statute was enacted.

Robert Sanchez lost an election for City Commissioner in Brownsville, Texas, but kept the forum on his campaign website active after the election. Elena Cisneros, the wife of Sanchez's former opponent, sued Sanchez for defamation in Texas state court claiming that pseudonymous users of the site posted statements stating that she had used cocaine.

Cisneros claimed that Sanchez had posted some of the statements under a pseudonym, and that he was responsible for the postings of others because he had refused to remove them, even though he was aware of their defamatory character.

Sanchez removed the case to federal court on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)) protected him from liability. On Cisneros's motion to remand, the federal court held that, as an affirmative defense, CDA 230 did not provide proper grounds for removal of the action to federal court when the parties were both from Texas and the plaintiff had asserted only state law claims for relief. The court therefore remanded the case to state court, and the parties then reportedly settled the case for $150,000. Sanchez issued a full apology and retraction.

Two female Yale Law School students, captioned as Does I & II, sued Anthony Ciolli, the former chief education director of the popular law school admissions forum, AutoAdmit, and a host of pseudonymous users of the forum over vulgar, sexually explicit, and threatening comments posted about them on the forum. In addition to making numerous derogatory and sexually explicit statements about the two students, pseudonymous users of the site created another website, t14talent: The Most Appealing Women @ Top Law Schools (now defunct), and posted photographs of one of the students without her permission. (Although the complaint is not entirely clear on this point, the student claims copyright ownership in these photographs in addition to publicity rights, indicating that she may have been the creator of the photos and posted them online.)

According to the complaint, the two students complained about the forum postings to the AutoAdmit staff, but AutoAdmit did not remove the material. Ciolli disputes that he had any authority to remove the offensive postings.

In June 2007, the two students sued in federal court in Connecticut, asserting claims of defamation, copyright infringement, unauthorized appropriation of name and likeness, unreasonable publicity given to another's life, false light invasion of privacy, and other torts. Soon after filing, they moved to proceed anonymously, and the court granted that request.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to modify the court's scheduling order in order to give them time to investigate the identity of the pseudonymous defendants and to amend their complaint. The court granted the initial request and two subsequent requests for thirty-day extensions, the last of which was requested on October 4. According to a tip posted on David Lat's Above the Law blog, it is unlikely that the court will grant a fourth extension, so an amended complaint may be forthcoming relatively soon.

Update:

11/8/07 - Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping Ciolli from the lawsuit.

1/24/08 - Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery seeking to uncover the identities of the pseudonymous posters listed in the complaint.

1/29/08 - Court granted motion for expedited discovery.

2/22/08 - Pseudonymous defendant "AK47" moved to quash the subpoena directed at AT&T requesting information about his identity.

3/2/08 - Plaintiffs deposed former defendant Anthony Ciolli, at which Ciolli acknowledged that his AOL Instant Messenger username is "AnthonyCiolli."

3/4/08 - Former defendant Anthony Ciolli filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and other defendants for wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contract, and unauthorized use of name or likeness.

3/18/08 - Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to AOL seeking the names of "all persons who have registered or used" the username "AnthonyCiolli" and related information about the account, including "other user names and login IDs and/or Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses associated with the IM username 'AnthonyCiolli.'"

4/7/08 - Ciolli filed a motion to quash the AOL subpoena in federal district court in Virginia.

06/13/08 - The court denied AK47's motion to quash the subpoena seeking his identity from AT&T.

08/05/08 - Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names Mathew C. Ryan (previously known by username ":D") as a defendant. Legal Satyricon "can confirm with 100% certainty that the guy in the complaint is neither an attorney nor a law professor."

8/13/08 - Defendant "a horse walks into a bar", a.k.a Ryan Mariner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff's have stated no cause of action against him and that they have failed to prosecute the action against him despite offers to accept service made through counsel. 

9/10/08 - Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to Mariner's motion to dismiss.

9/19/08 - The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that the plaintiffs' subpoena to AOL seeking the names of "all persons who have registered or used" the username "AnthonyCiolli" was facially invalid because it was issued from the wrong court.  The court determined that it should have issued from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Because the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, it did not reach the merits of Anthony Ciolli's motion to quash. 

10/26/08 - Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement and request for dismissal against defendant "Whamo."

3/31/09 - Pennsylvania federal court largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Anthony Ciolli's complaint in Ciolli v. Iravani, but gave defendants leave to renew their motion after jurisdictional discovery.  The court also struck certain allegations from the complaint relating to settlement negotiations in the Connecticut lawsuit. 

4/30/09 - Connecticut federal court denies Matthew Ryan's motion to dismiss. 

5/21/09 - Matthew Ryan files his answer to the second amended complaint in Connecticut federal court.

9/29/09 - Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal of Action Against Defendant ":D", A.K.A. Matthew C. Ryan

10/16/09 - Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Action Against Remaining Defendants Without Prejudice by Doe 1, Doe 2

10/23/09 - Court dismissed case

Anthony DiMeo III, blueberry farm heir and operator of publicity firm Renamity, threw a New Years Eve party on December 31, 2005 that did not end well -- the district court judge referred to it as "the ... party from hell." Tucker Max, Internet celebrity and operator of www.tuckermax.com, hosts a forum on the aforementioned Web site in which anonymous posters ridiculed both the party and DiMeo himself. DiMeo sued Max for defamation in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, and Max then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See DiMeo v. Max, 433 F.Supp.2d 523, 533 (E.D. Pa. 2006). DiMeo added claims for violations of telecommunications-harassment statute 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(c) and for punitive damages, though the district court dismissed both with little discussion (the former primarily because it was based on a criminal statute that offered no private cause of action, and the latter because it was a legal remedy rather than a claim). The court similarly dismissed DiMeo's motion to amend his complaint, which the court saw as a futile attempt to repair the 223(a)(1)(c) claim.

Max filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the court granted with prejudice. Following a typical analysis of a case governed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), the court held that Section 230 barred DiMeo's defamation claim because: a.) Max, as the operator of the Web site and forum, was a provider of an interactive computer service; b.) DiMeo's claims treated Max as a publisher or speaker of information; and c.) the forum posts were information provided by a third-party content provider. The court noted that DiMeo did not allege that Max was the author of the disputed content, and thus it necessarily was third-party content. Because providers may not be treated as the publishers of third-party content under Section 230, dismissal was appropriate. DiMeo appealed the dismissal of the defamation claim and the dismissal of the motion to amend to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Update:

On Sept. 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. In a short opinion marked "not precedential," the Third Circuit followed the district court's reasoning in finding TuckerMax.com to be an interactive computer service that was protected from liability for third-party speech under Section 230. As of Sept. 25, 2007, the case has not been appealed.

Stephen Moldow established the website "Eye on Emerson" in late 1999. He posted information about local government activities, including minutes of meetings of the borough council, planning board and board of education. Public opinion polls were conducted on the site, which included approval ratings of local elected officials. The site included a discussion forum, in which any user could post messages, either with attribution or anonymously.

Unknown users of the website posted comments on the forum under pseudonyms criticizing Vincent Donato and Gina A. Calogero, elected members of the Emerson Borough Council, and other local public officials. One comment indicated that Donato was "emotionally and mentally unstable and in need of psychiatric help, ready to explode and should be on medication." Another stated that Calogero used illegal drugs.

Donato, Calogero and other officials sued Moldow for defamation and other torts in New Jersey state court, claiming that he was responsible for the messages as a publisher. The plaintiffs subpoenaed the Internet service provider that hosted the website, seeking the identities of the unknown posters. The Public Citizen Litigation Group and the ACLU submitted an amicus curiae brief to address the First Amendment and Due Process rights of the anonymous posters who were not represented by counsel in the case. The court quashed the subpoena because the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of an important New Jersey opinion, Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe, 342 N.J. Super. 134 (N.J. App. Div. 2001). The plaintiffs abandoned their claims against the anonymous posters.

The trial court later dismissed the complaint against Moldow on CDA 230 grounds, and the appeals court affirmed. See Donato v. Moldow, 865 A.2d 711, 713 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2005).