A Maryland prison director filed a defamation lawsuit against Maryland political blogger Joseph Albero for allowing an allegedly defamatory user comment to appear on his website. Douglas Devenyns claims an anonymous commenter on Albero's Salisbury News blog falsely stated he was a "sexual predator" who shortened female inmates sentences in exchange for sex, according to The Daily Times.

According to Delmarva Dealings, the suit seeks $150,000 in damages. The complaint tries to get around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by arguing that Albero is liable for the comment because he determines which comments to publish and whether he will edit them first.

Update:

9/10/2009 - Albero filed a motion to dismiss under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  He argues that the act protects third parties even if they perform some editorial functions.  

11/30/2009 - The court granted Albero's motion for summary judgment.

In August 2008, Keith Goodridge sued WYBS, Inc., owner of the site www.merchantcircle.com, and a John Doe using the screen name "Attorney" over allegedly defamatory comments posted to the site.  According to the complaint, a posting from June 4, 2008 falsely claimed that an outdoor arena Keith Goodridge Construction (KGC) had built collapsed, killing a teenager. 

WYBS removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230"). In February 2009, Goodridge amended his complaint to add factual allegations regarding a second allegedly defamatory posting on merchantcircle.com, from November 21, 2008.  He also attempted to plead around Section 23 by claiming that WYBS itself republished both allegedly defamatory statements in multiple locations on its site.  Susan and Anthony Gatchell were added as defendants in lieu of the John Doe "Attorney."

WYBS filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint, claiming that the reposting alleged by Goodridge did not appear on WYBS's site, but rather on completely independent third-party sites, such as Craigslist.org.  It also reasserted its claim of immunity under Section 230.

On February 24, 2009, Goodridge filed a motion to remand to state court, claiming that the addition of  Susan and Anthony Gatchell — both residents of Oregon like Goodridge — eliminated federal jurisdiction. In June 2009, a magistrate judge issued his recommendation that the case be remanded to state court and that Goodridge be allowed to file a second amended complaint. 

On July 14, 2009, the federal district court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate and remanded the case to the Linn County Circuit Court.

Update:

May 12, 2010 -  A reader submitted the following update via email: "The Linn County Court granted an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of WYBS against Plaintiffs in the amount of $22,242, on the ground that there was no objectively reasonable basis for the claim." 

Jane Doe, an anonymous blogger and author of the website Pogo Was Right: Privacy News from Around the World, filed suit in the Central District of California against Lillian Glass, Ph.D. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) Doe is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from liability for postings made by anonymous third parties in the website's forums, and (2) that certain comments made by Doe on the blog do not defame Dr. Glass.

The case arises from a series of posts by Doe on the Pogo Was Right website relating to the mental health problems experienced by Britney Spears and the resulting media coverage. Dr. Glass, a "body language expert," had appeared on CNN's Showbiz Tonight and on CNN's Primetime Live with Erica Hill to discuss Ms. Spears' behavior and to offer a potential diagnosis of Ms. Spears as suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder. In response, Doe authored a series of posts criticizing Dr. Glass' comments and raising concerns about Ms. Spears' privacy and patient confidentiality.

On June 18, 2009, an attorney for Dr. Glass wrote to Doe, asserting that certain comments by Doe and an anonymous forum poster "violated the privacy rights and other rights" of Dr. Glass; were "false and defamatory in nature, and [were] designed to embarrass and hold my client up to ridicule"; and "incited persons with such propensities and have called for Dr. Glass' death." (The latter in reference to the following from one of Doe's posts:  "'Dr. Phil' catches some flak and dishes some out A complaint filed about Dr. Phil -- but is it wellfounded? People who live in Glass psychology houses shouldn't throw stones. They should be stoned. Dr.
Lillian Glass backpedals, but is it too little, too late?") The letter demanded that Doe remove all references to Dr. Glass from her posts.

Dr. Glass' attorney subsequently sent an email once again threatening to sue if Doe did not remove the references to Dr. Glass from the webiste. The email also stated: "I should also mention to you that if a suit is filed against you, then there will be a public record of your identity and of your capacity as the blogger of this 'pogowasright.org' and other websites. Since you have gone to such great lengths to hide your identity improperly, I think this should also be a concern of yours." Doe filed the complaint for a declaratory judgment ten days after receipt of this email.

First Call Properties and its officers filed suit against AAA Apartment Locating and Craigslist in Texas state court, alleging, among other claims, trademark infringement, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference.  According to the complaint, First Call began posting advertisements on Craigslist's Corpus Christi site using their trademark phrase "First Call" in March of 2009.  Shortly thereafter, AAA allegedly began posting advertisements to the same Craigslist local site using the words "first call," "call first," and "call us first."  (Compl. 3.)  First Call alleges that AAA posted these ads "deliberately and intentionally in an effort to confuse the public into believing the ads were posted by [First Call]."  (Compl. 3.)  It also claims that AAA's ads contained "false, libelous and misleading information" about First Call.  (Compl. 4.)

First Call asserts that it sent multiple cease and desist notices to AAA, with copies sent to Craigslist.  Based partly on this, it asserts that Craigslist knew of AAA's "unauthorized practice" and did nothing to stop it, materially contributing to AAA's alleged infringement.  (Compl. 5.)  First Call is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions and damages.

On May 29, 2009, the Nueces County District Court entered a temporary restraining order, barring AAA from posting ads containing phrases such as "first call," "call first," or "call us first," which might cause confusion and deceive the public; using a telephone logo similar to that used by First Call; making false or defamatory statement about First Call or its officers, agents, or employees; or causing ads posted by First Call to be removed from Craigslist or any other public domain.  Craigslist was barred from removing legitimate ads posted by First Call. 

The temporary restraining order was made reciprocal by the court, pursuant to an agreement by the parties, thus barring First Call from using AAA's trademarks, making false or defamatory statements about AAA, or causing AAA's ads to be removed.  It was also extended to include Stephan Noak and Sarah Regmund, owner of Free Apartment Locators, neither of whom are parties to the litigation.

On June 26, 2009, the case was removed to the federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  A hearing is scheduled for July 29 before Judge Janis Graham Jack.

UPDATE: 

07/15/09- First Call filed a motion to dismiss the case against Craigslist. However, it continued its suit against the other parties.