Flavaworks v. Cannick [1]

The Chicago Department of Public Health released a Winter 2006 report regarding a “cluster” of HIV and other STD outbreaks at a Chicago apartment building. The report noted that the outbreaks were associated with Flavaworks, an Internet pornography company that had used the building as a base for some of its pornographic ventures – including the site, "Cocodorm.com." Flavaworks subsequently was involved with investigations stemming from the report and other legal issues. Alongside print media coverage of the Flavaworks situation, bloggers Cannick and Tarver wrote posts critical of the company. According to the bloggers' sites, both received e-mails from Flavaworks asking for those posts to be removed. They refused.

Flavaworks then filed a complaint with Tarver's Web host, alleging that Tarver's use of a Cocodorm photo in his post infringed the company's copyrights. The Web host removed the photo from the blog without consulting Tarver. Tarver then replaced the photo, prompting the Web host to shut down his blog until he explained the situation. His blog was put back online without the photo, but the blog post remained intact.

In June 2007, a Flavaworks attorney sent letters to Cannick and Tarver alleging that they had defamed the company in their posts. Interestingly, the letter took issue with the bloggers' statements that Flavaworks was trying to shut down their blogs simply because they had criticised the company. It warned the bloggers that they would face legal action if they each did not issue an immediate public retraction and pay $250,000 before July 18. Both bloggers refused.

Flavaworks did not pursue legal action following Cannick's and Tarver's rejection of the terms of the letter. Although Cannick noted in a blog post that she had received notice Flavaworks was suing her, this statement referred to the letter discussed above, rather than a case filing.