Mezzacappa v. O'Hare

Mezzacappa v. O'Hare (March 31, 2015)


STATUS: Court finds blogger not liable.


Pa.Ct.Comm. Pleas.: Blogger Isn't Liable for Anonymous Reader Comments
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
In this case, the Court says that the blog is an interactive computer service, Mezzacappa's claims of defamation and privacy invasion are publisher/speaker claims and it was apparent that the anonymous comments came from third parties.
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&context=historical


Opinion:
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1961&context=historical

Yelp v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning

Yelp v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning (4/16/15)


STATUS: Virginia Supreme Court rules in favor of Yelp.


Virginia Supreme Court Won't Force Yelp to Reveal Identities of Anonymous Commenters
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
In a victory for Yelp and its anonymous commenters, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Circuit Court could not force the California based online review site to reveal the identity of users who had posted negative reviews of the California carper cleaning service.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/virginia-supreme-court-wont-force-yelp-reveal-identities-anonymous-c


Opinion:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1140242.pdf

Sanders v. Walsh

Sanders v. Walsh  (9/16/13)

STATUS: Appellate panel rules against online posters.

Cal.App.: Courts Crack Down on Web Posters Playing "Fast and Loose" with Facts
The Recorder
For the second time in many months, an appellate panel has ruled against posts on Yelp and similar sites.  The decisions cut against the grain of some previous appellate decisions which have held that readers expect posts on internet message boards to play fast and loose with the truth, setting a higher bar to defamation.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202619508102&Courts_Crack_Down_on_Web_Posters_Playing_Fast_and_Loose_With_Facts&slreturn=20130823122033

Brompton Buildings v. Yelp

Brompton Buildings v. Yelp (January 31, 2013)

Ill.App.: Building Owner Can't Discover the Identity of Tenant Who Writes Bashing Yelp Review
Forbes (Eric Goldman)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/02/20/building-owner-cant-discover-the-identity-of-tenant-who-writes-bashing-yelp-review/

Opinion:
http://www.state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2013/1stDistrict/1120547_R23.pdf

Lesher v. Doescher

Lesher v Doescher (April 16, 2012)

STATUS: District Court judge grants Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Tex. Dist.: Record Libel Award Gone As Fast As It Came
Courthouse News
A judge has thrown out the record $13.7 million jury award to a lawyer and his wife who said they falsely accused of sexual perversion, molestation and drug dealing in more than 25,000 online postings.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/47601.htm

>>Final Judgment: Lesher v. Doescher
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/19/lesherj.pdf

Summit Bank v. Rogers

Summit Bank v. Rogers

STATUS: Lawsuit dismissed in May 2012.

Cal. App.: Court Rejects 1917 Law on Defaming Banks
San Francisco Chronicle
A state appeals court has ordered the dismissal of an Oakland bank's suit against a vociferous online critic and struck down a 95 yr old state law that makes it a crime to make false statements or spread rumors about a bank's financial condition.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/31/BUUM1OPIUN.DTL

>>Opinion: Summit Bank v. Rogers
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A129800.PDF

Price v. Gannett

Price v. Gannett (May 1, 2012)

STATUS: Court rules that Topix is protected by Section 230 on May 1, 2012.

S.D.W.Va.: Topix Protected by 47 USC 230
Technology & Marketing Law Blog (Eric Goldman)
The plaintiffs alleged that pseudonymous posters made defamatory and otherwise tortious remarks about the plaintiffs on Topix.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/05/topix_protected.htm

Order:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/west-virginia/wvsdce/2:2011cv00628/74173/15/

Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.

Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.

STATUS: The Illinois Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling on November 17, 2011.

Ill. App.: Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Anonymity of Online Critic of Political Candidate
Electronic Frontier Foundation
The Illinois Court of Appeals today overturned a lower court ruling that had ordered the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous online critic of a political candidate, ruling that the First Amendment prevented such "fishing expeditions" undertaken by "those easily offended by online commentary."
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/illinois-appellate-court-upholds-anonymity-online-critic-political-candidate

Opinion: Stone v. Paddock Productions, Inc.
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/stonevpaddock-opinion-111711.pdf

Varrenti v. Gannett Co.

STATUS: Complaint filed on August 5, 2011

N.Y. Sup.: Anonymous D&C Web posts about cops not defamatory

Democrat & Chronicle
The Democrat and Chronicle does not have to release information about four individuals who anonymously posted Web comments about members of the Brockport police and Brockport Police Chief Daniel Varrenti, a judge has ruled
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110806/NEWS01/108060315

--Complaint: Varrenti v. Gannett Co.
http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications1/MLRC_MediaLawDaily/Attachments3/varrenti.pdf

Shiamili v. Ardor Realty Corp.

UPDATE (6/16/2011)

STATUS: Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss affirmed on June 15, 2011

N.Y.: Blog not liable for defamatory comment: NY high court

Reuters
In a 4-3 ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the Communications Decency Act shields the Real Estate Group of New York Inc., or TREGNY, from liability for defamation and unfair competition against Ardor Realty Corp, because TREGNY was the blog's administrator, not the author of the comments in question.
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP492fbaaa0ed545868e86fbdece67f921.html

--Decision: Shiamili v. Ardor Realty Corp.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/CTAPPS/Decisions/2011/Jun11/105opn11.pdf

See also:

--New York Appellate Court Opinion: Shiamili v. Ardor Realty Corp.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_09403.htm

Shamblin v. Martinez

UPDATE (4/20/2011)

STATUS: Judgment granting defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed on April 13, 2011

Tenn. App.: Cult Accusations Lacked Malice, Court Affirms

Courthouse News Service
A Christian weight-loss guru failed to prove that she was defamed by a critic who accused her on the Internet of running a cult, a Tennessee appeals court ruled. Gwen Shamblin, leader of the Remnant Fellowship Church in Brentwood, Tenn., sued Rafael Martinez after he made an allegedly defamatory comment about her on the Celebgalz.com website. . . "We have reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and have determined that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence upon which a trier of fact could find actual malice," Judge Richard Dinkins wrote on behalf of the appeals court.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/18/35887.htm

--Opinion: Shamblin v. Martinez
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/112/Gwen%20Shamblin%20et%20al%20v%20Rafael%20Martinez.pdf

See also:

Shamblin v. Anonymous Blogger, No. 06648 (Tenn. Dist. Ct., Williamson County filed Nov. 6, 2006).

Gwen Shamblin and 78 members of the Remnant Fellowship Church that she leads sued an anonymous blogger, and Rafael Martinez, who operates the web site spiritwatch.org, for statements labeling the church as a cult and saying that it advocates starvation and torture of children. In April 2007, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5909117
http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/remnant-church-files-defamation-lawsuit/85157.htm
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/NEWS01/703150391 Complaint: http://www.spiritwatch.org/shamblie1.pdf
Defendant’s motion to dismiss: http://www.spiritwatch.org/martinezmotion.pdf
Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal: http://www.spiritwatch.org/MartinezNoticeOrder-1.pdf
Spirit Watch statements on the suit: http://www.spiritwatch.org/shamblie2.htm

Pilchelsky v. Gatelli

STATUS: The court quashes the appeals in part, vacates the order to disclose identities of commenters and remands

Pa. Super.: Court Reverses Order Unmasking Politician's Critics

MediaPost
Backing online commenters' right to anonymity, an appellate court in Pennsylvania has overturned an order requiring a Web site operator to disclose the identities of commenters who slammed a local politician.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=142524&nid=122400

--Decision: Pilchelsky v. Gatelli
http://mlrc.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0xMjExNzc1JnA9MSZ1PTAmbGk9NTA2MTAyNg/index.html

Article of the Month: Under Pressure Craiglist Removes "Adult Services" Section

In addition to our brief posts on legal actions against bloggers, this blog will also be home to a monthly article exploring one of the cases in more depth. The article will also be published in MLRC's MediaLawLetter, our monthly magazine that covers what's happening in the media world. To see all of the articles from the MediaLawLetter, please consider joining Media Law Resource Center!

Seemingly acquiescing to the demands of state attorneys general, Craigslist has removed the “Adult Services” section of its website. Some supporters maintained hope while the link remained covered by a black bar reading “censored.” However, any fleeting chance of a sustained protest disappeared when the site removed the section entirely, a change it confirmed in recent Congressional testimony.

The move came two weeks after 17 attorneys general sent the site’s founder, CEO, and attorney a letter noting strong concerns that the page provided easy access to prostitution and child sex trafficking. Although the letter was phrased as a request and contained no legal threats, it carried force through its widespread dissemination. The letter was the latest in a two-year effort by state AGs to curtail the website’s alleged facilitation of illicit activities.

Craigslist had already restructured the portion of its page, previously entitled “Erotic Services,” in an effort to reign in the lascivious free-for-all. The site began screening each adult post and requiring an accompanying $10 payment, credit card information, and a verifiable phone number.

Many saw these steps as a boost to public safety, as the increased transparency and high volume on the page allowed law enforcement to intervene when necessary. But AGs, aided by vocal advocacy groups and perhaps feeling the pressure of an election year, found the steps inadequate. Even after the Adult Services section has been removed entirely in the United States, they continue to press for its elimination worldwide.

With their steadfast commitment to pursuing the matter, the AGs have created the impression of unassailable legal strength, yet a close look at the law surrounding this issue reveals that Craigslist fares well in a potential lawsuit.

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). In other words, barring a certain set of exceptions, Craigslist is not liable for the speech of others simply by providing a forum for communication.

Judicial interpretation of Section 230 has made the provision only stronger with time, and factors that might appear troublesome for Craigslist in reality pose no hurdle. Issues that do not undermine its defense include Craigslist making money from the Adult Services ads, see, e.g., Doe v. GTE, 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003), screening posts to allow some and delete others, see, e.g., Green v. AOL, 318 F.3d 465 (3rd Cir. 2003), and knowing that there was illegal activity taking place. See, e.g., Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2009).

Opponents also could not get around the 230 defense by couching their claims in a different form, such as by claiming that Craigslist aided and abetted prostitution, see GTE, 347 F.3d 655, or was negligent in enforcement. See Doe v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008). The company appears to be on safe ground as long as it avoids actively inducing the creation of illicit content. See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)

Craigslist has already successfully relied on Section 230 to defend its Adult Services area. In a lawsuit brought by an Illinois sheriff against the company for creating a public nuisance by facilitating prostitution, the court determined that none of the site’s actions brought it outside of 230’s protective sphere. See Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009). Craigslist has also successfully invoked immunity when sued for discriminatory postings in its housing section, see Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008), and for injuries caused by the sale of firearms on the site. See Gibson v. Craigslist, 2009 WL 1704355 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009).

In reality, the AGs probably know their legal stance is a weak one; therefore, they have moved their case to the court of public opinion, where outrage can carry more weight than precedent. The market they are attempting to shut down, meanwhile, now moves underground, to other, anonymous sections of Craigslist and to competing websites.

Mead v. Gaston Gazette

N.C. court won’t force newspaper to I.D. online commentator
The Associated Press
Gaston County Superior Court Judge Calvin Murphy ruled the Gaston Gazette did not have to tell the attorney for a murder suspect who a commentator was on an article about the case.
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/08/n-c-court-wont-force-newspaper-to-i-d-online-commentator/

See also:



North Carolina Superior Court Holds State Shield Law Protects Identities of Newspaper Website Commenters
Newsroom Law Blog
http://www.newsroomlawblog.com/2010/08/articles/shield-laws/north-carolina-superior-court-holds-state-shield-law-protects-identities-of-newspaper-website-commenters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewsroomLawBlog+%28Newsroom+Law+Blog%29&utm_content=Bloglines

Black v. Google, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010)

STATUS: Dismissed.

N.D. Cal.: 47 USC 230 Preempts Sponsorship/Endorsement Liability--Black v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/08/47_usc_230_pree_1.htm
>> Decision, Black v. Google, Inc.: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36097214/Black-v-Google-Dismissal

Pa. Comm. Pleas: Judge orders identities of commenters be revealed
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Anonymous bloggers beware. You may not be as anonymous as you think. Forward Township Supervisor Thomas DeRosa has won a court victory in the action that he filed in November to uncover the identities of people who posted comments on an online bulletin board that he said defamed him.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10224/1079435-455.stm?cmpid=business.xml

Juzwiak v. Doe

N.J. Super. App. Div.: Recipient of Offensive E-Mails Can't Force Yahoo to Name Sender

New Jersey Law Journal

The ruling ... instructs how e-mails fit into the contours of the decade-old precedent that allowed for unmasking anonymous posters of injurious comments on the Web if certain tests are met.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464260189&Recipient_of_Offensive_EMails_Cant_Force_Yahoo_to_Name_Sender

-- Decision: Juzwiak v. Doe: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nj/Juzwiak-a2302-09.pdf

N.C. Super.: Ruling upholds online confidentiality

Charlotte Observer

News organizations would not be forced to give up the identities of online commenters on news articles, according to a pre-motion ruling in Gaston County Superior Court this week.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/31/1593029/ruling-upholds-confidentiality.html#ixzz0vSUcz6GS

Hersh v. Cohen

N.Y. Sup.: Should Anonymous Comments be a Right? 
PC World 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting in another case to keep anonymous commenting safe from sweeping subpoenas. A New York couple has issued dragnet subpoenas to Google and Yahoo demanding the identities of users behind 10 email accounts, 30 blog operators, website administrators, and the identities of anyone who had ever commented on those sites.
----Electronic Frontier Foundation's Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Quash

In re Anonymous Online Speakers (Quixtar v. Signature Management Team LLC)

9th Cir.: Court: Anonymous Web posts bring limits to commercial free speech 
Las Vegas Sun 
...The court, in an opinion written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown, said "Given the importance of political speech in the history of this country, it is not surprising that courts afford political speech the highest level of protection."  But McKeown, quoting from another court's decision, wrote, "Commercial speech on the other hand, enjoys a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values..."
--- Decision: In re Anonymous Online Speakers (Quixtar v. Signature Management TEAM, LLC)

See also:

Ninth Circuit Weighs In On Internet Anonymity, Consumer Griping At Risk 
Citizen Media Law Project
 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision last Monday in In re: Anonymous Online Speakers, No. 09-71265 (9th Cir. July 12, 2010), a case that could be influential for future courts deciding whether to order the identification of anonymous or pseudonymous Internet speakers.
--- Decision: In re: Anonymous Online Speakers