Nemet v. ConsumerAffairs.com [1]

Nemet Chevrolet and its owner Tom Nemet filed a lawsuit against ConsumerAffairs.com, a consumer ratings site run by former reporter James Hood, for publishing user complaints against his company. Nemet claims the postings published on the site constitute defamation, tortious interference with business expectations and violations of the Lanham Act.

According to Nemet's complaint [2], visitors to the website fill out an online complaint form, which the editors check for defamatory content before publishing. One disputed user complaint alleges that the company had reneged on a promise made by one of its salespersons to a customer. Another customer posting quoted in the complaint asserts that the company sold the car to her at an inflated price. Nemet maintains that these and other statements are defamatory. 

Nemet's complaint also alleges that the website's name "Consumer Affairs" is misleading and deceptive in violation of the Lanham Act, because it misleads members of the public into believing that it is a government body.

On April 14, 2008, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or strike the complaint [3], arguing that it has immunity from defamation and tortious interference under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [4]. It also argued that plaintiffs had failed to state a Lanham Act claim, because Nemet has no rights to the trademark "Consumer Affairs." The court set a motion hearing for May 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

Update:

6/18/2008 - The district court granted [5] ConsumerAffair's motion to dismiss or strike the complaint.

7/15/2008 - The district court granted [6] Nemet Chevrolet's motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

08/04/2008 - ConsumerAffairs filed a motion to dismiss or strike the amended complaint [7].

9/11/2008 - The district court granted [8] ConsumerAffair's motion to dismiss or stike the amended complaint.

9/25/2008 - Nemet Chevrolet filed a notice of appeal [9].

12/29/2009 - The Fourth Circuit affirmed [10] the lower court's dismissal of the case.