Former House Representative Richard Ottinger and his wife, June Ottinger, filed a John Doe lawsuit in New York state court and served a subpoena on The Journal News, a daily newspaper distributed in New York and Southern Connecticut that operates LoHud.com, a website providing an online version of the newspaper as well as community forums. The subpoena sought identifying information for three posters to the site's Mamaroneck community forum going by the psuedonyms "SAVE10543," "hadenough," and "aoxomoxoa." According to court documents, the three posters falsely accused the Ottingers of bribing a local official and presenting a fraudulent deed in connection with a neighborhood dispute over their construction of a house in the Village of Mamaroneck, New York. 

In March 2008, the Journal News moved to quash the subpoena. In a May 28, 2008 hearing on the motion, the court converted the John Doe lawsuit into a "special proceeding" for pre-action discovery against the Journal News. In the same hearing, the court adopted the standard for protecting the First Amendment right to anonymous speech set forth in Dendrite v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001), and required the Ottingers to post notice on two LoHud forums notifying the pseudonymous posters of the pending discovery request and asking them to appear through counsel or otherwise on June 25, 2008.

At the June 25 hearing, none of the pseudonymous posters appeared through counsel or otherwise. In a subsequent opinion and order, the court held that the Ottingers had satisfied the requirements of the Dendrite standard and ordered the Journal News to turn over the requested information within five days. More specifically, the court found that the Ottingers had identified and set forth the alleged defamatory statements with sufficient precision, provided adequate notice via the LoHud forums, and made a sufficient preliminary factual showing on the merits of their defamation case. Relying on Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), the court held that the Ottingers were not required to make a factual showing on the element of "actual malice" because that information could not reasonably be expected to be in their possession at such an early stage in the proceedings, given the anonymity of the defendants. 

Oliver "Buck" Revell, former associate deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, filed a defamation lawsuit against medical professor Hart G.W. Lidov and Columbia University after Lidov wrote and posted an article critizing Revell on the Columbia Journalism Review's online bulletin board. According to court documents, the article accused Revell of participating in a conspiracy that allegedly resulted in the tragic bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Revell's suit in Texas federal district court included claims against Lidov, Columbia's Board of Trustees, and the Columbia School of Journalism for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to commit defamation and infliction of emotion distress. His complaint also contained negligence and gross negligence claims against Columbia for publishing the article without making an adequate determination of its truth or falsity.

Both Lidov, a Harvard Medical School professor and resident of Masschusetts, and Columbia, a New York entity, filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Revell argued in his complaint that the Texas court had specific jurisdiction over Revell and Columbia because they had engaged in purposeful conduct that caused damage in Texas. Specifically, he argued that the defendants' posting of the article was sufficient to confer jurisdiction because the online bulletin board could be accessed in Texas. Revell argued further that Columbia had sufficient commercial contacts with Texas to warrant general jurisdiction.

The district court granted the motions to dismiss. The court analyzed the online contacts under the "sliding scale" test developed in Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). Applying the test, the court determined that the bulletin board was a "passive" website and thus did not constitute sufficient contact with Texas to confer jurisdiction. The court also determined that the defendants' other contacts with Texas were minimal and thus also insufficient to warrant jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Fifth Circuit closely followed the reasoning of the district court, though it also devoted significant attention to rebutting Revell's specific jurisdiction claims under the "effects" test established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The court determined that Lidov's article was not "expressly aimed" at Texas and thus could not satisfy the "effects" test.

Salisbury, Maryland Police Chief Allan Webster filed a lawsuit against local blogger Joe Albero, who operates the Salisbury News blog, wich covers matters of local interest in Salisbury and Wicomico County. Albero, who often takes local politicians to task, criticized and posted information about Webster on the blog. Although the details are not entirely clear, the dispute seems to have revolved, at least in part, around Albero's posting of a third-party, anonymous letter addressed to Salisbury City Council Members. Webster's complaint included claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.

In his pre-trial memorandum, Albero argued that he should not be compelled to disclose his source for the letter. He argued that the source of the letter was not relevant to the case, that Maryland's shield law protected him from having to identify his source, and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized him from liability for posting the letter.

In an April 9, 2008 ruling, District Court Judge Gerald Purnell ruled that Albero could not take advantage of the Maryland shield law, which applies to individuals who are "employed" by the "news media" (which is defined as including any "electronic means of disseminating news and information to the public"). Although we have not been able to obtain a copy or transcript of the ruling, one report indicates that the court denied Albero the protection of the shield law because he does not earn revenue from the Salisbury News. In any event, the court decided that Albero would not be required to reveal the identity of his source, relying on either the relevance or the CDA 230 argument (exactly which is not clear).

On July 30, hours before the trial was set to begin, the parties announced they had settled the dispute on "non-monetary terms." The parties offered no further comment regarding the settlement.

In January 2008, literary agent Barbara Bauer and her company Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. filed a lawsuit in New Jersey State court against twenty-two defendants, including the Wikimedia Foundation. The complaint includes claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and conspiracy. According to court documents, the dispute revolves around statements made on a large number of websites and blogs describing Bauer as being among the "20 Worst Literary Agents" and claiming that she has "no . . . significant track record of sales to commercial (advance paying) publishers." The complaint also alleges that various defendants posted altered photographs of Bauer on the Internet and created YouTube videos, including "Crouching Snark, Hidden Draggon" and "Miss Snark's Happy Hooker Crapstravaganza," that allegedly defamed and belittle her.

With regard to Wikimedia, the complaint alleges that Wikipedia published false statements indicating that Bauer was "The Dumbest of the Twenty Worst" literary agents and that she has "no documented sales at all." It further alleges that Bauer informed Wikimedia about the allegedly false statements, and that the foundation "has refused to remove the statements from Wikipedia." Finally, it alleges that Wikimedia conspired with the other defendants to defame and interfere with her prospective economic advantage, without providing any details.

On May 1, 2008, Wikimedia moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), the federal law that shields providers and users of "interactive computer service[s]" from liability for defamation and other torts for publishing the statements of third parties, bars Bauer's claims as a matter of law. Wikimedia's memorandum in support of its motion also argued that, even if CDA 230 did not bar Bauer's claim, the underlying statements are protected opinion under the New Jersey Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On May 20, 2008, WritersNewsWeekly.com wrote that the court will hear Wikimedia's motion to be dismissed from the lawsuit on June 6, 2008.

Update:

7/1/08 - Court dismissed the case against Wikimedia Foundation, ruling that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred liability for publishing the statements of others. The court left open the possibility that Bauer could amend her complaint to state a claim against Wikimedia.

On March 13, 2008, Higher Balance Institute (HBI), which markets metaphysical products and education programs, filed a defamation lawsuit against the alternative news website Signs of the Times and its operators, the Quantum Future Group and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Only Quantum Future Group has been served. HBI claims that employees of the Quantum Future Group posted defamatory statements about it on one of the website's forums. According to the complaint, these statements include allegedly false claims that HBI is a "front for pedophilia," that HBI is "conning the public," that meditation, as sold by HBI is an act of "falling into confluence with a psychopathic reality," and that HBI is a "cointelpro" organization. Cmplt. ¶23. (The Signs of the Times website uses the term "cointelpro" to refer to organizations that it claims perpetuate the ethos of a 1970s FBI counter intelligence program designed to quell domestic dissent.)

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Oregon, contains claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional interference with business relationships and prospective economic advantage. HBI seeks over $4 million in damages and an injunction. On April 25, 2008, Quantum Future Group moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150.

Update:

4/25/2008 - Quantum Future Group filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for lack of personal jurisdiction.

5/19/2008 - Quantum Future School, Signs of the Times, and Knight-Jadezyk filed special motions to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute and joined Quantum Future Group's motion to strike. 

12/18/2008 - The district court granted the defendants' motions to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute. The court's decision relied in part on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

06/18/2009- The court granted in part the defendants' motion for attorney's fees. The court found the request of over $135,000 to be excessive, and so awarded $51,500.

Global Royalties, Ltd., an international firm that brokers investments in gemstones, sued Xcentric Ventures, Inc., Ed Magedson, and Jane Doe Magedson over three allegedly defamatory posts made by a third party, Spencer Sullivan, on Xcentric's website Ripoff Report. According to the amended complaint, Sullivan criticized Global Royalties and individuals associated with it and accused the company of "operating a scam involving the sale of gem stones." Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Sullivan allegedly posted this latter comment under the category "Con Artists," one of a number of categories Ripoff Report users can choose from when posting. Id.¶ 16. After Global Royalties' lawyers contacted him, Sullivan requested that his posts be removed from the website. Ripoff Report did not remove the posts, following its strict policy against removing reports.

In July 2006, Global Royalties and its owner, Brandon Hall, sued Sullivan and Xcentric in the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada. When Xcentric did not appear to defend itself, the Canadian court found it in default and issued an order requiring Xcentric to remove the disputed statements. When Xcentric still refused to take down the posts, Global Royalties and Hall sued in federal court in Arizona, seeking to enforce the Canadian court order and bringing a defamation claim under Arizona law.

Xcentric moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Canadian order was unenforceable and that the defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations, the truth of the statements, and CDA 230 immunity. The court granted Xcentric's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Canadian order was not entitled to enforcement because it was not a final judgment. The court dismissed the defamation claim on grounds that CDA 230 immunized the defendants. It ruled that CDA 230 protected the defendants even though they provided a list of categories including the term "Con Artist" and even though Sullivan himself asked for the post to be removed. The court allowed Global Royalties to file an amended complaint, which it did in December 2007.

The amended complaint dropped the claim for enforcement of the Canadian order and re-pled the defamation claim. Xcentric again moved to dismiss, raising CDA 230 and statute of limitations defenses. In opposing the motion, Global Royalties recycled its previous argument that CDA 230 should not protect website operators when the author of a statement asks for it to be removed. In February 2008, the court granted Xcentric's motion and dismissed the case, noting that "liability based on an author's notice, workable or not, is without statutory support and is contrary to well-settled precedent that the CDA is a complete bar to suit against a website operator for its 'exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether or not to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.'"