Strax Rejuvenation and Aesthetics Institute, a plastic surgery clinic in Lauderhill, Florida, filed a lawsuit in May 2008 against a patient who allegedly posted a defamatory review of her treatment on CitySearch.com. The patient, Marshia Durham, said in news reports that she stands by her review, which accused Strax of mishandling her tummy tuck and facelift. She said she posted her comments on the web using only her first name. Durham's review has since been removed from the site.

On May 5, 2009, Durham filed a notice of lack of prosecution after no activity had occurred in the suit for more than ten months. If no action takes place within sixty days of the notice's filing, the court may dismiss the suit.

James Ricobene filed suit against JP Morgan Chase and collection agency Universal Tracing Services (UTS) after a UTS employee allegedly posted a message on Ricobene's daughter's MySpace page threatening legal action if he did not surrender his 2007 Mercedes GL450, which he apparently used as collateral to secure a loan from Chase. 

According to Ricobene's complaint, the message posted on Gina Ricobene's MySpace page read as follows:

We have been retained by, JPMorgan Chase Bank, to locate and repossess their missing collateral a 2007 Mercedes GL 450. Please contact our office immediately so we can discuss the peaceful recovery of the collateral. Failure to contact me will result in further action against your father James Ricobene. Legal options range from having a replevin order served on you or even worse reporting the collateral as stolen to local authorities in Illinois under the A.R.S. act 18-5-504. Failure to comply with this notice of surrender is a class 5 felony and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years plus all applicable surcharges. You must contact the writer within 5 days to prevent this action from taking place. You can contact me directly at 800-667-7704 ext 222 or directly at 604-267-1581 ext. 222

Awaiting your immediate response.

Chris Flanagan
Senior investigator

Complaint ¶ 6.  Ricobene's complaint points out that refusing to return collateral without a court order is not a crime in Illinois, and that "there is no such thing as a 'class 5 felony' in Illinois." Complaint ¶¶ 11, 13. It also alleges that friends and family members saw the message on MySpace, causing Ricobene humiliation, embarassment, and emotional distress.

Ricobene's complaint includes claims of libel, false light invasion of privacy, and consumer fraud.  According to Chicago Breaking News, his daughter Gina has also filed suit, claiming invasion of privacy and consumer fraud.

According to  On Point News, UTS denies having an employee by the name stated in the post and claims that "no employee 'has ever posted anything on anyone's MySpace page."  Its website, however, boasts that "Universal tracing prides itself in using the latest technology and resources to track down and locate the hardest to find missing persons, and debtors." (emphasis in original)

On February 13, 2009, Tim Blixseth, a real estate developer and shareholder in the bankrupt Montana ski resort Yellowstone Club, filed a complaint in Massachusets federal court against Bresnan Communications, a New York-based ISP, and 100 unnamed defendants.  The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Blixseth was entitled to obtain from Bresnan Communications the identity of one of its subscribers, an anonymous commenter to the NewWest.net website going by the moniker "Sharkbait."

Blixseth alleged that Sharkbait made a death threat against him in the comments section to an NewWest article on the Yellowstone Club bankruptcy. Counsel for Blixseth contacted NewWest shortly after the alleged death threat was posted, and the site's publisher agreed to remove the comment and disclose Sharkbait's IP address.

The same day the complaint was filed, Blixseth served a subpoena on Bresnan Communications requesting that it provide identifying information for Sharkbait's IP address.  Counsel for Bresnan Communications objected to the subpoena, citing federal law prohibiting cable operators from divulging customer information without a court order and notice to the subscriber.

Blixseth then filed an emergency motion seeking an order requiring Bresnan Communications to turn over the requested information and a motion to seal.  The district court subsequently denied both motions.  There has been no activity on the docket since mid-February 2009.

In August 2005, Ridgefield New Jersey mayor Anthony R. Suarez sued Ridgefield resident Michael Mecca, who had allegedly posted defamatory content to the Ridgefield forum on NJ.com under the alias "Voter12345."  According to court filings, the allegedly defamatory content indicated that the mayor took part in a politically motivated raid on Mecca's house and was present when police showed up at the door to investigate an anonymous tip that he had an illegal apartment.  (App. Ct. Op. 2.)  At a deposition, however, Mecca admitted that the incident had been relayed to him by his friend, Ridgefield municipal prosecutor Marc Ramundo, and had not actually occurred in front of either Mecca or Ramundo.  According to the Appellate Court opinion, Mecca believed that the story was true.  (App. Ct. Op. 3.)

The trial court granted summary judgment to Mecca, finding that Suarez had "failed to show any harm to his reputation, or damages, resulting from the claimed defamatory conduct."  (App. Ct. Op. 2.)  Upon appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court's ruling, upholding the grant of summary judgment for Mecca. 

According to NorthJersey.com, Mecca has filed a malicious prosecution suit against Suarez.  The jury in that case found, however, that Suarez's defamation suit was not malicious.  

Dr. Antonio Alvi Armani, a California hair-restoration surgeon, filed a lawsuit in Florida federal court against Media Visions, Inc., and its president, Patrick Hennessey, the operators of The Hair Tranplant Network, a hair-loss forum.  The complaint, also filed on behalf of Armani Medical, Inc., claimed that Hennessey and Media Visions posted false comments about Armani and his practice on the forum site and created the false impression that posters on the site were bona fide disgruntled patients, when if fact they were either fictitious persons or undisclosed affiliates of doctors on the site's recommended list of "pre-screened" doctors.  The complaint included claims for deceptive and unfair trade practices, defamation, trade libel, and tortious interference with contract.

The complaint further claimed that the defendants failed to comply with an alleged "industry practice" of hair-loss forums:

It is industry practice and procedure to respond to this kind of posting by having the moderator of the website send a private message to the alleged "patient" requesting they privately submit verifying information to the moderator establishing their identity as a bona fide patient of the doctor in question. If the patient is verified as real then the clinic or hospital responsible for their treatment is allowed to post a response.

Compl. ¶ 50. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing Media Visions was immune from liability for user comments under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230).  The plaintiffs then withdrew their claims for trade libel and tortious interference with contract. They also filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, arguing that the defendants were not immune under Section 230 because the defendants themselves posted defamatory comments. 

In a December 2008 ruling, the court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unfair trade practices claim, ruling that Section 230 did not apply because the claim was not based soley on "information provided by another information content provider."  In support of this conclusion, the court noted that the plaintiffs had alleged, among other things, that Media Visions created fake website content itself, failed to adequately disclose its sponsorship relationship with rival doctors, and refused to comply with the standard industry practice of verifying the identity of posters who have been called into question.

The court granted dismissal of the defamation claim on grounds that the plaintiffs had not complied with Fla. Stat. § 770.01, part of the Florida retraction statute that required them to give written notice of the alleged defamatory statements at least five days before filing suit.

The parties stipulated to dismissal of the complaint with prejudice in February 2009, apparently due to a settlement.

Doherty Enterprises, Inc., a large Applebee's restaurant franchisee with approximately 80 restaurants in New Jersey and neighboring states, sued Michael Murray for defamation and trade libel over a critical comment posted to a September 2008 article on NorthJersey.com, the online edition of The Record. 

The article in question contained an interview with Ed Doherty, the founder and president of Doherty Enterprises. In the interview, Ed Doherty stated that he believes he “treat[s employees] with dignity and respect and provide[s] a great opportunity for them to have a good job . . . . I want the people that work for me never to want to leave me.” When asked what his "recipe for success was," Doherty replied: “Don't lie, don't steal. And treat everybody the way you want to be treated. If you do that, you've lived a good life. . . . It's so simple.” 

Michael Murray posted the following comment:

I find this article quite disturbing with respect to how Ed Doherty represents how he treats people. I am an advocate involved in a sexual harassment case and have arbitration transcripts which demonstrate that women . . . are routinely sexually harassed and that this behavior is condoned by high level management at Doherty Enterprises right up to the top. His General Managers & Area Managers commit perjury, obstruct and/ or [sic] ignore sexual harassment claims with immunity
[sic]. This man and his rhetoric are repugnant and fly in the face of the facts. . . . . Additionally, any reader who has a daughter, wife etc. [sic] working for Doherty are more than likely being subjected to similar treatment. . . .

At the time, Murray, a non-lawyer, was representing his daughter in the arbitration of a sexual harassment case against Doherty Enterprises, in which she claimed that she was sexually harassed by managers and employees of the Applebee’s at which she worked.  In late 2007, Murray had rejected a settlement offer on behalf of his daughter.

Doherty Enterprises filed suit, and both parties moved for summary judgment in April 2009.  In May 2009, the court granted summary judgment to Murray, dismissing all of the claims against him.  The court ruled that certain of the statements -- such as that Doherty's rhetoric was "repugnant" and that others were "likely being subject to similar treatment" -- were "pure opinion" subject to an absolute privilege. 

The court determined that the remaining statements related to a matter of public concern and that Doherty became a public figure for purposes of New Jersey law when he gave an interview with The Record, thus “voluntarily and knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that one in his position should reasonably know would implicate a legitimate public interest, engendering the real possibility of public attention and scrutiny.”  Therefore, the court held that the "actual malice" standard applied. Applying this standard, the court found that Murray had sufficient evidentiary support from the arbitration proceedings "to defeat any claim that these statements were made with the recklessness required."

The court refused to dismiss Murray's counterclaim for abuse of process, finding that factual issues remained about whether Doherty Enterprises brought the lawsuit with an "ulterior motive" to allegedly punish Murray refusing to settle the arbitration proceeding. 

According to one press account, Doherty Enterprises and Murray subsequently settled for an undisclosed amount.

On March 30, 2009, Dr. Barry Eppley, a plastic surgeon in the Indianapolis area, filed a lawsuit against former patient, Lucille Iacovelli.  The complaint included claims for defamation, trade disparagement, harassment, false designations and descriptions of fact, and false light publicity based on webpages, videos, and postings Iacovelli allegedly made regarding her past surgery experience with Eppley.  Eppley also asked for a temporary restraining order prohibiting Iacovelli from carrying out or writing about an alleged plan to commit suicide and publicize it in order to destroy his career. 

The court granted a temporary restraining order preventing Iacovelli from publishing anything related to a suicide attempt, her prior treatment by Eppley, or commenting on Eppley's role in preventing the suicide attempt the same day. Following a hearing on April 8, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker issued an order extending the temporary restraining order until April 18. 

On April 9, 2009, Iacovelli filed an answer to Eppley's complaint and counter sued Eppley, his lawyer Todd Richarson, and Lewis & Kappes (Richardson's law firm). On April 13, 2009, the court accepted Iacovelli's answer to the complaint but rejected her counterclaims as not conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

On April 17, the court granted Eppley's motion for a preliminary injunction.  The court found that Iacovelli's speech would not likely be protected by the First Amendment due to its defamatory and likely false nature as well as its lack of advancement of debate on a public issue. 

The preliminary injunction prevents Iacovelli or anyone in active concert with her from posting on the internet or emailing about Eppley, Eppley's attorneys, Lewis & Kappes, or referencing Eppley's actions with respect to Iacovelli's suicide threats.  It also requires her to remove any information about Eppley from any websites she controls, remove www.eppleyplasticsurgerysucks.com, www.barryeppleyplasticsurgeon.com, and www.lewis-kappessucks.com in their entirety, and refrain from registering any new websites that use Eppley's name.  It also requires her to remove any links to the listed websites until the conclusion of the lawsuit. 

On July 14, 2008, jewelry retailer Ecommerce Innovations filed a lawsuit against anonymous Ripoff Report posters who allegedly made "false and disparaging statements of fact about the [company's] products and services." Ecommerce allleged that Does 1-5 posted the comments as agents for Does 6-10, unknown companies that are competitors of Ecommerce.

The complaint includes claims for defamation in violation of California law and "trade libel" in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), which ordinarily applies to false advertising claims.

After filing the suit, Ecommerce subpoenaed Ripoff Report in Arizona, seeking the identities of the posters.  See our related database entry, Ecommerce Innovations v. Doe (Subpoena), for details.

First Cash Financial Services, a Texas-based company operating a chain of pawn shops and cash checking services, obtained a subpoena from a California state court requiring Yahoo to provide identifying information for an individual who posted anonymous comments to Fast Cash's Yahoo! Finance message board.  Fast Cash sought the information in order to identify the John Doe defendant in a breach of contract action it had previously filed in Texas state court.  (For details, see the related database entry, First Cash Financial Services v. Doe.)  The anonymous poster intervened and filed a special motion to strike the action (including the subpoena) under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  According to EFF, the California court denied the motion to strike, presumably allowing the subpoena to be enforced.

Cyd Duffin, principal of Colony High School in Palmer, Alaska sued MySpace, Inc. and John Doe defendants for defamation and invasion of privacy over the posting of a fake MySpace profile, which falsely depicted her "as a drug-using racist with a sexually transmitted disease who insults disabled students and likes books about pornography, anarchy and the Ku Klux Klan," according to the Anchorage Daily News.  The Anchorage Daily News also reported that Duffin dismissed MySpace from the case after the company agreed to cooperate by turning over records related to the creation of the fake profile.  

UPDATE:

7/14/2009 - Duffin dismissed the suit after two students confessed to authoring the fake profile. Though the two students were punished, Duffin did not disclose the severity of their punishment.