Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist from Foster City, CA sued Tai Jing and Jia Ma, the parents of a boy she treated, after they allegedly posted a negative review about her on Yelp!, a consumer review website.  Wong also named Yelp! Inc. as a defendant. The complaint contained three causes of action: first, a claim of libel against all three defendants; second, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Ma; and third, a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Yelp!  Wong's attorney subsequently told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would dismiss the claims against Yelp because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars recovery against the website for publishing third-party content.

Update:

01/21/2009 - Tai Jing, Jia Ma, and Yelp! Inc. filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

02/03/2009 - Wong voluntarily dismissed the claims against Yelp!

03/18/2009 - The court denied Tai Jing and Jia Ma's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law.

7/15/2009 -  Defendants filed their opening brief in the Sixth Appellate District.  Plaintiff responded on 9/14/2009 and Defendants filed their reply on 10/9/2009. 

11/9/2010 - The Sixth Appellate District issued a ruling dismissing all claims against Jia Ma and Yelp!, and both emotional distress claims against Tai Jing, under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.  The Court left intact the claim against Jing for libel.

05/12/2011 - On remand, the Superior Court awarded Jia Ma, Tai Jing, and Yelp! a total of $80,741.15 in legal fees for the claims dismissed under California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Yvonne Wong's libel claim against Tai Jing (as sole author of the Yelp! review) remains pending. 

On December 28, 2007, Ed and Brenda Hammitt filed a defamation lawsuit in the Superior Court  of Chattooga County, Georgia against Ken Busbin, Teresa Watson, operator of RomeNewsByWatson.com, and RomeNewsByWatson.com, Inc.  The Hammits alleged that Busbin pseudonymously posted a comment on RomeNewsByWatson.com accusing them of conspiring to grow and sell marijuana. 

Watson and RomeNewsByWatson moved to dismiss the complaint based on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).  Before the court ruled on the motion, all of the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern  District of Georgia, claiming that the federal court had jurisdiction because of the federal law issue in the case.  The Hammits moved to remand the case to state court.  The federal court granted the motion to remand, holding that it could not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the case based merely on the defendants' claimed defense under CDA 230.

Currently, the case is pending in Chattooga County Superior Court.

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie sued Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") and three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI for defamation and conspiracy. According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway. Appellant's Brief, at 4-6. INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties. At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here." INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted. On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters. The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements.

Subsequent proceedings revealed that two anonymous posters not named in the complaint or previous subpoena -- “RockyRacoonMD” and “Suze” -- were responsible for the comments about the Dunkin' Donuts establishment. Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as the three others whose identity had been protected by the court's early opinion on reconsideration. INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  INI appealed.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

MCW, Inc., a company providing career counseling under the trademark "Bernard Haldane," sued Badbusinessbureau.com, LLC ("BBB") and Edward Magedson in Texas federal court for unfair competition and false advertising under the Lanham Act and trademark infringement and business disparagement under Texas law.  The lawsuit revolved around negative reports about Bernard Haldane services published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. 

The complaint alleged that BBB and Magedson posted user reports containing false and defamatory statements about MCW's business, independently created defamatory titles, headings, and editorial comments, and used MCW's trademark in conjunction with the offering and selling of banner advertisements, third-party services, rebuttal and collection fees, and "Rip-Off Revenge" services. 

BBB and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for publishing third-party content, that they did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion, and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties' services. 

In ruling on the motion, the court held that CDA 230 did not bar MCW's claim because it had alleged that BBB and Magedson created false and defamatory report titles, headings, and other editorial content.  It also determined that BBB and Magedson lost immunity by soliciting a consumer to create disparaging material.  Nevertheless, the court dismissed the federal unfair competition and false advertising claims, concluding that MCW lacked standing, that it could not show a likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, and that Ripoff Report did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion.  The court then declined to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

MCW appealed the ruling, but later voluntarily dismissed its appeal.

J.P. Weichel has been charged with two counts of criminal libel after allegedly posting comments about a former girlfriend and her lawyer on Craigslist.com's "Rants and Raves" section.  According to the Loveland Connection:

The case in Loveland began when a woman approached the Loveland Police Department in December 2007 about multiple postings made about her between November and December 2007. At least one post suggests that she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney, according to court records. There's also mention about a child services visit made because of an injury found on her child.

Police obtained search warrants for records from Craigslist.com and other Web sites and identified J.P. Weichel as the suspect, the former boyfriend of the woman, who shares a child with her. In August, detectives confronted Weichel at his workplace, where police said he admitted to the postings because he was "just venting," according to the court file.

It appears that Weichel has been charged under Colorado's criminal libel law, Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-13-105, which defines criminal libel as follows:

(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

The charges against Weichel constitute a class 6 felony that carry a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.  A hearing is scheduled for December 2008.

Update:

5/14/09 - Weichel pled guilty to two counts of harassment and received four years probation, a five hundred dollar fine, and sixty hours of community service.

Lawyer Edward T. Saadi brought a defamation lawsuit against Pierre Maroun -- Saadi's cousin -- and Hala Fakhre Maroun over statements they allegedly posted to blog biggestloosers.blogspot.com (defunct).  According to Saadi's complaint, the Marouns' blog postings accused him of engaging in various forms of criminal and unethical behavior.

Saadi filed his complaint against Pierre, Hala, and several John Doe defendants in Florida federal court. As the case progressed, Saadi filed amended complaints that extended Saadi's defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims to other forum and website postings. An article posted to Alccresearch.com (defunct) allegedly accused Saadi of being associated with terrorism and with Hezbollah.  Saadi also added Maroun's International, LLC as a defendant. 

Pierre, Hala, and Maroun's International filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the disputed statements were statements of opinion and that Saadi had not properly alleged that they had authored the statements. On September 9, 2008, the court denied their motion to dismiss the defamation claim, finding that "statements that Plaintiff is a mentally unstable stalker, a criminal, and that he has received gifts paid for with money stolen from the Lebanese governemnt, as well as statements that suggest that Plaintiff falsely purports to have a law degree and has committed statutory rape, imply factual knowledge."  Slip op. at 5.  The court emphasized that the Marouns combined these statements with claims that the information was the result of "thorough investigation" and  posted them on sites that proclaim "OUR STORIES ARE TRUE."  Id. at 5-6.  Accordingly, the court held that the statements "assert facts that reasonably can be construed as defamatory." Id. at 6. 

The court granted the motion to dismiss the infliction of emotional distress claim against Hala, but denied the motion with respect to Pierre and Maroun's International.  The court did, however, grant their request for a more definite statement with respect to this claim. On September 22, Saadi filed his third amended complaint.

Update:

01/19/2009 -  Saadi voluntarily dismissed Hala Fakhre from the lawsuit.

03/02/2009 - Pierre Maroun filed a motion for summary judgment.

10/01/2009 - After completion of the trial, the court dismissed the claims against Maroun International. With respect to Pierre Maroun, the jury returned a verdict for Saadi, awarding $90,000 in damages. 

11/02/09 - The court granted in part and denied in part Saadi's motion for a permanent injunction.  The court ordered Maroun to "remove all references to Edward T. Saadi from the internet postings that are reflected in Trial Exhibits 19 and 2o" and "enjoined [him] from republishing in any manner any statement that Edward T. Saadi is a terrorist."  Otherwise, the court denied the motion.

02/05/10 - The court upheld the magistrate judge's ruling rejecting Saadi's motion asking the court to direct an assignment of Maroun's interest in a limited liability corporation, Maroun's International, LLC.  The magistrate found, and the court agreed, that the assignment would not bring Saadi any relief and was thus "futile and would waste the Court's resources."

Donna Fell is being sued for posting a rating on LawyerRatingz.com and also for posting a thread on Fairfax Underground about her experience with a law firm and lawyer. Three lawsuits are still pending in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia.

(Portion above submitted by Guest.)

Eric Von Kuersteiner, who owns and operates several businesses in the "Pines" beach resort community on Fire Island, New York, sued blog operator Eric Schrader and several anonymous commenters for defamation in New York state court.  Schrader ran the now-defunct pavillion.blog, named after a club owned by Von Kuersteiner.  The blog served as "an Internet discussion board/blog on which participants [could] post comments about social life in the Fire Island Pines community."

According to the court's opinion dismissing the case, anonymous and pseudonymous commenters to the blog made statements critical of Von Kuersteiner and his businesses, accusing him of watering down drinks at his bars, having a stinky septic system, being unsuccessful and losing money, treating employees badly, and not having a women's restroom, among other things.

After filing suit, Von Kuersteiner moved the court for permission to take the deposition of Blog.com, Schrader's blog hosting service, to learn the names, addresses, and IP addresses of the authors of the objectionable comments. Schrader objected to this request and moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the posts were not defamatory, and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) protected him from liability for the statements of third parties. 

In a decision on October 14, 2008, the court denied Von Kuersteiner's request for permission to take Blog.com's deposition and dismissed the case in its entirety.  The court first dismissed the case against Schrader, holding that he "exercised a publisher's traditional editorial function and is entitled to immunity under the CDA."  The court then denied Von Kuersteiner's discovery request and dismissed the case against the anonymous defendants, holding that the 35 statements Von Kuersteiner complained about were constitutionally protected statements of opinion when considered in context.

Donald and Janet Maxon served a pre-litigation petition for discovery on Ottawa Publishing Company, the operator of mywebtimes.com, a website for The Times, a local newspaper based in Ottawa, IL.  The Maxons sought to force The Times to provide identifying information about persons who they claim posted defamatory comments on the newspaper's website in March and April 2008, under the screen names "FabFive from Ottawa" and "Mary1955."  The petition also included a defamation count against a user identified as "Birdie1," who the Maxons allege is Susan Wren.

According to filings in the case, the Maxons alleged that users of the site posted comments suggesting that they had bribed members of the Ottawa Plan Commission. According to press accounts, the Maxons had sought approval from the Commission to add rooms to their house to accommodate a bed and breakfast. Several neighbors opposed their wish and the Maxons eventually gave up their plan after determining they were blocked by city ordinance.

On September 19, 2008, Ottawa Publishing filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Maxons had not met their burden of showing that the  commenters' First Amendment right to anonymity should be violated by the disclosure of the information the petition sought.

At a hearing on October 2, 2008, the Maxons' withdrew their request to discover the identity of " Mary1955."  The Court, applying the test for protecting anonymous speech laid out in Dendrite International v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001), found that the allegedly defamatory statements attributed to "FabFive from Ottawa" were merely statements of opinion and therefore dismissed the Maxons' petition for pre-suit discovery.  The Court also ordered that the Maxons' claim against Wren be severed from the petition for pre-suit discovery. (See our related database entry, Maxon v. Susan Wren.)

On October 6, 2008, the Maxons filed a notice of appeal to the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois.

Update:

2/17/09 - Maxons filed their appeal brief.

3/24/09 - Ottawa Publishing filed its response brief.

3/24/09 - CMLP and other media organizations sought to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the lower court's imposition of the Dendrite standard.

06/01/2010 - The Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District reversed the trial court's order dismissing the Maxon's petition.