Global Royalties, Ltd., an international firm that brokers investments in gemstones, sued Xcentric Ventures, Inc., Ed Magedson, and Jane Doe Magedson over three allegedly defamatory posts made by a third party, Spencer Sullivan, on Xcentric's website Ripoff Report. According to the amended complaint, Sullivan criticized Global Royalties and individuals associated with it and accused the company of "operating a scam involving the sale of gem stones." Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Sullivan allegedly posted this latter comment under the category "Con Artists," one of a number of categories Ripoff Report users can choose from when posting. Id.¶ 16. After Global Royalties' lawyers contacted him, Sullivan requested that his posts be removed from the website. Ripoff Report did not remove the posts, following its strict policy against removing reports.

In July 2006, Global Royalties and its owner, Brandon Hall, sued Sullivan and Xcentric in the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada. When Xcentric did not appear to defend itself, the Canadian court found it in default and issued an order requiring Xcentric to remove the disputed statements. When Xcentric still refused to take down the posts, Global Royalties and Hall sued in federal court in Arizona, seeking to enforce the Canadian court order and bringing a defamation claim under Arizona law.

Xcentric moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Canadian order was unenforceable and that the defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations, the truth of the statements, and CDA 230 immunity. The court granted Xcentric's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Canadian order was not entitled to enforcement because it was not a final judgment. The court dismissed the defamation claim on grounds that CDA 230 immunized the defendants. It ruled that CDA 230 protected the defendants even though they provided a list of categories including the term "Con Artist" and even though Sullivan himself asked for the post to be removed. The court allowed Global Royalties to file an amended complaint, which it did in December 2007.

The amended complaint dropped the claim for enforcement of the Canadian order and re-pled the defamation claim. Xcentric again moved to dismiss, raising CDA 230 and statute of limitations defenses. In opposing the motion, Global Royalties recycled its previous argument that CDA 230 should not protect website operators when the author of a statement asks for it to be removed. In February 2008, the court granted Xcentric's motion and dismissed the case, noting that "liability based on an author's notice, workable or not, is without statutory support and is contrary to well-settled precedent that the CDA is a complete bar to suit against a website operator for its 'exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether or not to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.'"

Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller claimed that someone posted false statements about him on Wikipedia. Zoeller traced the IP address of the unknown author of the statements to a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm. Zoeller sued the firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He filed the suit anonymously, but media outlets quickly discovered his identity. In the complaint, Zoeller alleged that the Wikipedia entry falsely stated that he had abused drugs and alcohol and mistreated his family.

According to USA Today, the paragraph in question was removed, but the information had been picked up by other websites. The lawsuit said it falsely alleged that Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family.

Zoeller failed to trace the IP address to one specific person, and Josef Silny & Associates repeatedly denied that any of its employees had authored the statements. Several months after filing, Zoeller voluntarily withrew the lawsuit.

Zoeller did not pursue a claim against Wikipedia, and statements from his lawyer to the press indicate a belief that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred a lawsuit directly against the online encyclopedia.

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, operates the Bad Business Bureau, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. This forum is located on a website that may be accessed through either of two domain names: ripoffreport.com or badbusinessbureau.com. The site solicits and receives complaints from all over the country and recommends tactics for writing “rip-off reports,” providing sample questions to ask companies, and advice for locating similarly situated consumers on the Internet.

On November 6, 2006, Energy Automated Systems filed a lawsuit against Xcentric and a site administrator, Edward Magedson, alleging defamation, interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. More specifically, EAS alleges in its complaint that it was listed on the website’s “Top Rip-Off Links” and has been the subject of various “rip-off reports.” Those reports have included titles, headings and editorial messages that, the plaintiff alleges, were created by the defendants, stating that EAS’s dealerships are a “complete” and “long running” “scam,” that EAS is a “damn scam ripoff business from hell,” that EAS’s Chief Executive Officer and other employees are “crooked” and “crooks,” that “EASI likes to threaten anyone that complains whether dealer or ex-employee” and that EAS has engaged in “fraud.”

On March 26, 2007, Xcentric filed a motion to dismiss for lack for personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Xcentric also raised the defense that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1), should mandate dismissal of the claims.

On May 25, 2007, the court held that Xcentric could not raise CDA 230 on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court refused to convert the motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, the court stated that CDA 230 could still be used as a defense in a later summary judgment determination.

After the parties proceeded to discovery, the case appears to have settled. On December 12, 2007, the parties filed an Agreed Order of Dismissal.

On December 10, 2007, an investigator with the Kansas University Office of Public Safety delivered a search warrant to the Lawrence Journal-World, a highly regarded newspaper in Lawrence, Kansas, demanding access to the newspaper’s computer servers. The search warrant, issued by Douglas County District Judge Stephen Six, sought information about the identity of an individual who had posted anonymous comments on the newspaper's website, LJWorld.com.

Investigators were seeking the identity of a user who had posted comments on the paper's website under the screen name "a2thek." The pseudonymous user had commented on an article about a Kansas University student who was found dead in a KU dorm room, indicating that the death was heroin-related.

According to the Lawrence World-Journal, the investigator left before executing the warrant:

When presented with the search warrant, the newspaper was given the opportunity to call its attorney [Bernard Rhodes], who contacted the district attorney’s office and the court to object to the search warrant. During that time period, the KU investigator left the Journal-World offices without executing the search warrant and did not return.

Rhodes stated that he believed the search warrant was issued contrary to the federal Privacy Protection Act, which restricts the ability of law enforcement to conduct searches of news-gathering organizations.

On January 6, 2008, after the paper made the search warrant public, a2thek posted a follow-up comment apologizing for providing inaccurate information in his earlier comment:

This infomation [sic] is not 100% correct and I would like to take some time to apologize for any mis-information. The guy that works with me I overheard in the bathrool [sic] making this speculation of what actually happened so I dont [sic] know if it's actual fact or hearsay. I do once again dont [sic] want to draw any lines or conclusions being I really dont know anything about all of it and I think the guy at work was just an aquitance [sic] and went to school with the guy and that's what he heard. I guess when a autopsy is performed that will get you the answers that your looking for. Sorry for all the misleading info once again.

On June 14, 2007, two prominent lawyers in Seattle, WA filed a class action lawsuit against Avvo Inc., the operator of Avvo.com, a website that profiles and rates lawyers and allows users to submit reviews of lawyers they have worked with. Plaintiffs also sued Mark Britton, Avvo's CEO, and 25 anonymous "John Doe" users of the site.

The lawsuit alleges that Avvo's rating system, which plaintiffs claim resulted in their receiving an unreasonably low score, violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act. They also allege that Avvo purports to be objective but is subject to manipulation, cannot produce a reliable system, contains inherent inconsistencies, does not provide a reliable benchmark for assessing lawyer competence, encourages consumer trust in a fallible system, allows attorneys to manipulate their ratings, promotes qualities of attorneys in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and does not accurately report in the categories where it purports to do so. As a result, they assert that Avvo has damaged their reputation and good will. Moreover, by filing a class action lawsuit, the two lawyers are disputing not only their own rankings on the site, but are also challenging the accuracy and validity of the mathematical algorithm used by Avvo to rate and compare attorneys.

On June 28, 2007, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted on December 18. In dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, Judge Lasnik wrote that the ratings on the site are protected statements of opinion, noting that "defendants' rating is not only defensible, it is virtually impossible to prove wrong." While evidencing clear skepticism about lawyer ratings generally, the judge also took the plaintiffs to task for bringing the lawsuit:

[P]laintiffs Browne and Wenokur want to make a federal case out of the number assigned to them because (a) it could harm their reputation, (b) it could cost them customers/fees, or (c) it could mislead the lawyer-hiring public into retaining poor lawyers or bypassing better lawyers. To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them. To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action

Judge Lasnik also rejected the plaintiffs' claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, concluding that the rankings are not commercial enough to fall under the act and any damages resulting from consumer misinformation are too speculative to support a claim.

As to Avvo’s possible defense under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the judge noted that "[p]laintiffs have disavowed any claim based on content that Avvo obtained from a third-party and the Court need not consider this defense further."

Todd Hollis objected to the information users posted about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a website that allows women to post about men and warn other women about them. In May 2006, Mr. Hollis sued Tasha Joseph/Cunningham, the operator of the website, alleging defamation in Pennsylvania state court, after she refused to remove the posts.

The Pennsylvania court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over Joseph/Cunningham, a resident of Florida.

On November 29, 2007, Hollis filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Florida, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Tasha Joseph/Cunningham issued the following statement in response to the new lawsuit:

DontDateHimGirl.com's mission is to empower women with the informationand connections that help them make better life decisions. DDHG.com is fully protected [from defamation lawsuits] by the Communication Decency Act. ... Any attack or lawsuit put forth regarding DDHG.com will be dealt with strongly, swiftly and in a manner which will seek to end this type of erroneous, wasteful litigation.

03/31/2008: Cunningham answered Hollis' complaint and filed a counterclaim against Hollis for defamation. The defamation claim arose from an telecopier document allegedly sent by an organization related to Hollis that stated as fact that Cunningham had been convicted of grand theft by the State of Florida.

04/14/2008: Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion argued that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on several of plaintiff's claims because certain examples of the disputed content were true and certain examples were entitled to protection under CDA 230.

03/2008 through 05/2008: Plaintiff and defendants filed a series of motions disputing discovery issues. These primarily concern defendants' requests for information from plaintiff and plaintiffs requests to depose individuals regarding defendants' reputation.

05/15/2008: Court dismissed Cunningham's counterclaim at Cunningham's request and granted Cunningham's request for protective orders that would prevent plaintiff from deposing certain individuals on the issue of defendants' reputation.

06/20/2008: The case has been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties. Details of the settlement are not yet available.

 

In June 2007, Rachel Neuwirth, a journalist and political commentator who espouses strongly pro-Israel views, sued Washington-state blogger Richard Silverstein and university professor Joel Beinin for libel in a California state court. On November 27, 2007, the court granted Silverstein and Beinin's motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

Neuwirth, a journalist and political commentator who espouses staunchly pro-Israel views, sued over two allegedly defamatory statements, one made by Silverstein on his blog, Tikun Olam, and the other made by Beinin on a listserv and subsequently re-published by Silverstein. In the first statement, Silverstein called Neuwirth a "Kahanist swine." The term "Kahanist" refers to a form of right-wing, religious Zionism, one of the central tenets of which is that all Arab Muslims are enemies of Israel. The Israeli Kahane Chai (Kach) party is barred from participating in Israeli elections and listed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Neuwirth argued that, by calling her a "Kahanist swine," Silverstein implied that she was a terrorist. The second statement was Beinin's, made on the "Alef" listserv, claiming that Neuwirth had made a death threat to him. Silverstein subsequently re-posted Beinin's statement on his blog.

In granting the motion to strike, the court determined that the anti-SLAPP statute applied because Silverstein and Beinin made their respective statements in a "public forum" and those statements related to an issue of public interest. The burden then shifted to Neuwirth to demonstrate a probability that she would prevail on her claim. The court found that Neuwirth had not met this burden, holding that she was a limited purpose public figure and noting that she had brought forth no evidence of "actual malice" for either of the two statements. With regard to Silverstein's "Kahanist swine" statement, the court further held that this was a non-actionable statement of opinion. 

Finally, the court held that Neuwirth's claim against Silverstein for re-publishing Beinin's statement was barred by CDA 230, which protects providers of interactive computer services from tort liability for publishing the statements or content of third parties.

The court awarded Beinin $1,840 in attorney's fees and indicated that Silverstein should make his claim for attorney's fees in a separate motion.  At the conclusion of the hearing in which the court delivered its decision, Neuwirth's attorney told the court that his client intended to appeal the ruling.

 

Update:

1/25/08 - Neuwirth filed a notice of appeal.

3/4/08 - The court ordered Neuwirth to pay Silverstein $7000 in attorneys fees pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute.

2/9/2009 - The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reversed the trial court's ruling on the motion to strike, reinstating the claims against Silverstein and Beinin, except for the claim against Silverstein for re-publishing Beinin's statement.

7/19/2010 - Superior Court order denying Silverstein's motion for summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that "the law of the case doctrine requires this Court to find that Plaintiff has established the existence of libel per se."  

(NOTE: Joel Beinin is the Director of Middle East Studies at the American University in Cairo, where one of the authors of this database entry attended graduate school.)

Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka is the webmaster of SomethingAwful, an online community forum with the catch phrase: "The Internet Makes You Stupid." A member of the community posted a link on the forum to a comic that depicted Jade Raymond engaged in sexual activities. Raymond is a video game producer for Ubisoft.

Ubisoft sent Kyanka a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that the comic be taken down from the site and threatening legal action. The letter claims that the comic infringed upon Ms. Raymond's "personal rights," caused emotional distress, and constituted trademark infringement, among other things.

Mr. Kyanka posted the letter on SomethingAwful in his own forum posting. In the posting, Kyanka claimed that he had no connection to the comic except that a link to it was posted on the forum. He said that he does not know who drew the comic and does not know where the image is located. Kyanka also sent Ubisoft's legal counsel a reply email, indicating that perhaps he did not take the legal threat seriously:

Please let it be known that hereforth I have read the express mail and email sent thereforth by Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP, and furthermore a declaration shall be expressed on the part of Internet User Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka that that forth herethrough I have conducted rigorous tests implemented through a vigorous barrage of legal studies, and furthermore hitherthrough these rigorous tests have therefore proven Famous Lawyer David Anderson of the Famous Lawyer Law Business of Nixon Peabody LLP shall be recognized as a man of the fag persuasion.

Pursuant to the United Dairy Council

Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka
Internet

The link to the comic is no longer on SomethingAwful, and Ubisoft has not taken any legal action against Kyanka.