Hammer v. Amazon.com [1]

Summary

Threat Type:

Lawsuit

Date:

08/27/2003

Status:

Concluded

Disposition:

Dismissed (total)

Location:

New York

Verdict or Settlement Amount:

N/A

Legal Claims:

Breach of Contract

Defamation

Other

Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat:

Amazon.com

Type of Party:

Individual

Type of Party:

Large Organization

Location of Party:

New York

Location of Party:

Washington
Delaware

Legal Counsel:

Jeffrey Hammer (Pro Se)

Legal Counsel:

Heather J. Windt - Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP

Description

Self-published author Jeffrey Hammer sued Amazon.com in New York state court (later removed to federal court by Amazon) alleging libel, defamation, antitrust violations, breach of contract, and copyright violations, among others things. The dispute revolved around negative reviews of Hammer's books posted on Amazon.com [2] by reviewer Anthony Trendl and Amazon's failure to remove Trendl as a reviewer. Before filing suit against Amazon, Hammer sued Trendl directly, but a federal court dismissed the lawsuit. (For details, see our database entry, Hammer v. Trendl [3].)

Hammer's complaint claimed that Amazon was liable for publishing Trendl's allegedly defamatory statements, that Amazon violated his copyright by displaying a graphic depicting Plaintiff's book cover, and that Amazon breached its contract with him and otherwise violated his rights by removing his books from the site and refusing to do further business with him.

Amazon moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Hammer's allegations failed to state a claim and that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [4] ("Section 230") protected it from liability for publishing Trendl's statements. Amazon also moved the court for a permanent injunction to prevent Hammer from filing future lawsuits against it.

The court granted Amazon's motion to dismiss and partially granted its motion for a permanent injunction against Hammer. The court ruled that Trendl's comments were statements of opinion that could not support a defamation claim. The court dismissed the copyright claim, finding that Amazon's use of the book graphic either involved no copying, or alternatively, was authorized by Hammer. The court found that Amazon was within its contract rights terminating its relationship with Hammer. The court did not reach Amazon's Section 230 argument.

The court granted an injunction against Hammer preventing him from commencing any action against Amazon in federal court relating to reviews of his books or Amazon's refusal to do business with him.