Recreational vehicle dealership McGeorge Camping Center ("McGeorge") sued Affinity Group ("Affinity"), operator of the RV.Net Open Roads Forum, and several posters to the forum. The case revolves around statements accusing certain commenters who made positive statements about McGeorge of being employees or paid agents of the dealership. In its lawsuit filed in Virginia state court, McGeorge claimed that Affinity and the forum posters defamed it and engaged in a civil conspiracy to harm its reputation, trade, or business. 

Affinity removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. It argued that it was protected from liability for third party comments on the forum under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230"). It argued also that McGeorge had failed to establish a valid defamation claim based on the posters' comments. One of the posters to the forum, James Hurdle, answered the complaint and moved for judgement on the pleadings, arguing that McGeorge had failed to state a claim against him.

Before the district court ruled on these motions, McGeorge moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that, because Hurdle was a Virginia citizen, his presence among the defendants destroyed the diversity of citizenship necessary to give the federal court subject-matter jurisdiction. The court agreed and remanded the case to state court.

In October 2007, Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. and its sole shareholder, David Kent, sued Jean Bowler in federal court in Michigan. Bowler runs Ageless Beauty, an informational website on various aspects of beauty, cosmetics, and cosmetic surgery. According to the complaint, Bowler published an article on the website "sometime in 2007," in which she discussed an investigation of Liftestyle Lift's advertising methods by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (BBB).

The complaint acknowledged that BBB did in fact investigate the company and its advertising in 2007, but alleged that BBB closed the investigation with a report dated 30,2007, and that Bowler's article mischaracterized the nature of the investigation and falsely implied that it was ongoing after its closure. See Cmplt. 14-15. Lifestyle Lift claimed that Bowler's article constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act, defamation, commercial disparagement, and a violation of the Texas Deceptive Practices-Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint also alleged that Bowler infringed Lifestyle Lift's trademark and engaged in cybersquatting by using "Lifestyle Lift" in a URL for the site and in metadata. (Note: the cybersquatting claim is unprecedented and definitely invalid because Lifestyle Lift did not allege that Bowler registered, trafficked in, or used a domain name containing the words "Lifestyle Lift" or anything like it. The company was evidently confused about the difference between a single URL and the domain name for a website.)

The parties settled in February 2008. The entire terms of the settlement are not public, but Bowler has removed the disputed article from her website.

In October 2007, Lifestyle Lift Holding, Inc. sued Justin Leonard and his company Leonard Fitness, Inc. for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. Leonard runs the forum website infomercialscams.com, which gives consumers the opportunity to voice their criticisms and defenses of various products and services, including the "Lifestyle Lift" cosmetic surgery procedure. The complaint alleged that Leonard infringed and diluted the "Lifestyle Lift" trademark by using it in URLs for his website. It also claimed that he violated federal false advertising law by creating the false impression that the Lifestyle Lift procedure and its associated services were a "scam." See the Complaint at paragraph 18.

In December 2007, Leonard moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, that his noncommercial use of Lifestyle Lift's trademark for purposes of consumer commentary was protected by the First Amendment, that his use of the trademark was nominative fair use, and that Lifestyle Lift had failed to allege a proper trademark or false advertising claim. The court granted Leonard's motion to dismiss during a May 2, 2008 hearing. The record does not indicate whether the court gave Lifestyle Lift permission to amend its complaint.

Update:

According to Public Citizen (Leonard's counsel) Lifestyle chose to pay $17,500 in attorney's fees rather than face the possibility of Rule 11 sanctions.

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.'"

Lifestyle Lift, Inc. owns the trademark "Lifestyle Lift" for use in connection with cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures. The company licenses this trademark to cosmetic and plastic surgery centers across the country, and doctors perform facelift procedures marketed to the public under the name "the Lifestyle Lift." In January 2008, Lifestyle Lift sued Real Self, Inc., the operator of RealSelf.com, an interactive website with forums that let consumers discuss their experiences with cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures and vote on whether a procedure was "worth it" or "not worth it." A number of RealSelf users have written negative reviews of the Lifestyle Lift procedure, with 55% of users currently saying that the procedure was "not worth it."

The complaint alleges federal trademark infringement, unfair competition under federal and state law, and a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. It claims that RealSelf.com passed itself off as affiliated with Lifestyle Lift by using its trademark in metadata and publishing a page that incorrectly listed contact information for doctors performing its procedure in Michigan. It is not altogether clear the extent to which Lifestyle Lift is alleging that RealSelf user reviews incorporating its mark violated its trademark rights. (Notably, one of the exhibits to the complaint consists almost entirely of user reviews about Lifestyle Lift.)

On March 3, 2008, Real Self filed an answer alleging that its use of the mark is a fair and nominative use (the latter defense refers to situations where you need to use someone's trademark in order to discuss or comment on a product or service). The company also filed counterclaims, alleging that Lifestyle Lift violated its terms of service (and unfair competition laws) by planting shill reviews in the Lifestyle Lift discussion threads.

Update:

5/12/08 - The parties settled. The terms of the settlement are not public. 

7/15/2009 - According to the New York Times, Lifestyle Lift agreed to pay $300,000 in penalties and costs to New York State to settle an action brought be the New York Attorney General over Lifestyle Lift's practice of posting fake reviews on consumer review websites posing as satisfied clients.

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, operates the Bad Business Bureau, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. This forum is located on a website that may be accessed through either of two domain names: ripoffreport.com or badbusinessbureau.com. The site solicits and receives complaints from all over the country and recommends tactics for writing “rip-off reports,” providing sample questions to ask companies, and advice for locating similarly situated consumers on the Internet.

On November 6, 2006, Energy Automated Systems filed a lawsuit against Xcentric and a site administrator, Edward Magedson, alleging defamation, interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. More specifically, EAS alleges in its complaint that it was listed on the website’s “Top Rip-Off Links” and has been the subject of various “rip-off reports.” Those reports have included titles, headings and editorial messages that, the plaintiff alleges, were created by the defendants, stating that EAS’s dealerships are a “complete” and “long running” “scam,” that EAS is a “damn scam ripoff business from hell,” that EAS’s Chief Executive Officer and other employees are “crooked” and “crooks,” that “EASI likes to threaten anyone that complains whether dealer or ex-employee” and that EAS has engaged in “fraud.”

On March 26, 2007, Xcentric filed a motion to dismiss for lack for personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Xcentric also raised the defense that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1), should mandate dismissal of the claims.

On May 25, 2007, the court held that Xcentric could not raise CDA 230 on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court refused to convert the motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, the court stated that CDA 230 could still be used as a defense in a later summary judgment determination.

After the parties proceeded to discovery, the case appears to have settled. On December 12, 2007, the parties filed an Agreed Order of Dismissal.

On June 14, 2007, two prominent lawyers in Seattle, WA filed a class action lawsuit against Avvo Inc., the operator of Avvo.com, a website that profiles and rates lawyers and allows users to submit reviews of lawyers they have worked with. Plaintiffs also sued Mark Britton, Avvo's CEO, and 25 anonymous "John Doe" users of the site.

The lawsuit alleges that Avvo's rating system, which plaintiffs claim resulted in their receiving an unreasonably low score, violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act. They also allege that Avvo purports to be objective but is subject to manipulation, cannot produce a reliable system, contains inherent inconsistencies, does not provide a reliable benchmark for assessing lawyer competence, encourages consumer trust in a fallible system, allows attorneys to manipulate their ratings, promotes qualities of attorneys in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and does not accurately report in the categories where it purports to do so. As a result, they assert that Avvo has damaged their reputation and good will. Moreover, by filing a class action lawsuit, the two lawyers are disputing not only their own rankings on the site, but are also challenging the accuracy and validity of the mathematical algorithm used by Avvo to rate and compare attorneys.

On June 28, 2007, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted on December 18. In dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, Judge Lasnik wrote that the ratings on the site are protected statements of opinion, noting that "defendants' rating is not only defensible, it is virtually impossible to prove wrong." While evidencing clear skepticism about lawyer ratings generally, the judge also took the plaintiffs to task for bringing the lawsuit:

[P]laintiffs Browne and Wenokur want to make a federal case out of the number assigned to them because (a) it could harm their reputation, (b) it could cost them customers/fees, or (c) it could mislead the lawyer-hiring public into retaining poor lawyers or bypassing better lawyers. To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them. To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action

Judge Lasnik also rejected the plaintiffs' claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, concluding that the rankings are not commercial enough to fall under the act and any damages resulting from consumer misinformation are too speculative to support a claim.

As to Avvo’s possible defense under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the judge noted that "[p]laintiffs have disavowed any claim based on content that Avvo obtained from a third-party and the Court need not consider this defense further."