Defamation / Right of Publicity / CDA Section 230 Immunity

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal district court decision ordering the disclosure of the identities of three anonymous online speakers who made allegedly defamatory statements as part of a company's online "smear campaign" against a competitor. In Re: Anonymous Online Speakers, No. 09-71265 (9th Cir. July 12, 2010). The alleged victim of the "smear campaign" sought the identities of the three anonymous speakers as part of the civil discovery process. The anonymous speakers objected to the disclosure of their identities on First Amendment grounds, arguing that their right to anonymous speech outweighed the need for discovery of their identities. The district court disagreed and ordered disclosure of the speakers' identities. 

The California Supreme Court, in Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 468, 213 P.3d 132 (2009) discussed the impact of the single publication rule on right of publicity claims in non-traditional media.  Its decision opens the door to extended liability for right of publicity claims beyond the two year statute of limitations that the Court of Appeals applied.

In the last two weeks, two courts--a New York state court and a federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C.--considered the issue of when to unmask anonymous online speakers. The New York state court considered the issue in the context of a pre-action discovery request and ordered Google to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger so that a potential plaintiff could file a suit for defamation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considered what standard to require when presented with a motion to quash or enforce a subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous defendant. These two cases represent the latest developments in the evolution of judicial rules governing the unmasking of anonymous online speakers.

Last week, in Zango v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., No. 07-35800 (9th Cir. June 25, 2009), the Ninth Circuit upheld a trial court determination that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Action (CDA) immunizes providers of filtering and security software from claims brought by Internet services that the software blocks. This immunity comes under CDA Section 230(c)(2)(B), which protects from libility providers of interacitve computer services who perform "good samaritan" blocking of offensive material. Prior to Zango, the Ninth Circuit had held that Section 230 protected Internet service providers that removed objectionable user content. Now, after Zango, Section 230 also protects from liability companies that provide "tools that filter, screen, allow, or disallow" objectionable Internet services, such as spyware or adware. Now, under CDA Section 230, filtering and security software companies cannot be held liable for actions they take to make available the means to restrict access to objectionable material.

Today, in response to a petition for rehearing by Yahoo! supported by several amici, the Ninth Circuit amended its initial decision in Barnes v. Yahoo! to (1) eliminate its previous assertion that a Section 230 defense couldn't be raised on a motion to dismiss and (2) note that its restatement of Section 230 only applies to state law claims. This amendment addresses both arguments made by Yahoo! in its petition for rehearing and confirms that (1) a Section 230 defense can be raised on a motion to dismiss and that (2) Section 230 creates immunity from federal law as well as state law claims. The amended opinion is available here.

On May 21, 2009, Public Citizen, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Citizen Media Law Project, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted an amicus brief in support of Yahoo's petition for rehearing in Barnes v. Yahoo!, which we previously discussed here. The brief urges the Ninth Circuit to modify dicta in its initial decision and make two corrections: (1) that a Section 230 defense can be raised on a motion to dismiss and (2) that Section 230 creates immunity from federal law as well as state law claims. The amicus brief is available here.

In Barnes v. Yahoo, Inc., No. 05-36189 (9th Cir. May 7, 2009), the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court determination that CDA section 230 (47 USC § 230) barred a plaintiff's claim for negligent failure to remove indecent content as promised. The Court, however, also reversed the district court’s dismissal, holding that section 230 did not bar plaintiff's claim insofar as it alleged breach of contract based upon promissory estoppel. According to the Ninth Circuit, whether section 230's affirmative defense is available to an ISP turns on whether the cause of action "inherently requires the court to treat the defendant as the 'publisher or speaker' of the content provided by another." Here, because the negligence claim required the court to treat Yahoo as a publisher, it was barred. Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim, however, treated Yahoo as counter-party to a contract, not as a publisher or speaker, and could therefore proceed.

The District Court of Minnesota last week granted summary judgment to CBS Interactive, permitting it to use professional football player statistics for fantasy football, despite the fact that a player organization owns the players' rights of publicity.  CBS Interactive Inc. v. National Football League Players Association, -- F. Supp. 3d -- (D. Minn. 2009).  The Court applied a recent Eighth Circuit decision dealing with baseball statistics, finding its reasoning controlling. See C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007).

A federal district court recently held that a union was not liable for offensive content posted on its website by union members.  In Raggi v. Metropolitan Police Department, the plaintiff sued a union of Las Vegas law enforcement personnel after two members allegedly posted impermissible content about the plaintiff on the union's website.  2009 WL 653000 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2009).  The court ultimately found that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") shielded the union from liability because (1) the union was a provider of interactive computer services; (2) the union did not control content on the site; and (3) the members were not acting as agents of the union when they posted the impermissible content.  Id.

The Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C § 230, provides broad immunity to Web-based service providers for civil claims stemming from their publication of information created by third parties. A recent ruling from the Northern District of Texas and the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal of a Fifth Circuit case involving MySpace reaffirm the broad scope of this immunity afforded under Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA.

Case No. 2000CA00136 (Ohio Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2000)
OH
An Ohio appellate court reversed a lower court's decision concerning immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Hardy operated a website that allowed users to post and read opinions on the website.

In Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1439, 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 122 (2007), the California Court of Appeals reversed a $16 million jury verdict in a right of publicity case brought under California's publicity statute and remanded to the lower court for consideration based on its opinion.

In CBC Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., Nos. 06-3357/3358 (8th Cir. Oct. 16, 2007), the Eighth Circuit held that although the use of public information about Major League Baseball players on a fantasy baseball website met all the elements of a right of publicity claim, such use was protected by the First Amendment.

Plaintiffs Universal Communication Systems and its CEO, Michael J. Zwebner, ("UCS") recently sued Lycos, Inc., the operator of an Internet message board, claiming that Lycos should be liable for defamation as a result of postings made by a third-party on one of its message boards.  At the district court level, the court granted Lycos' Motion to Dismiss the case on the grounds that it was immune from liability for third-party postings on its message boards, pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Section 230").  On appeal, the First Circuit reached the same conclusion and held that plaintiffs' claims could not proceed against Lycos.

Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless each contracted with DirectRevenue LLC to deliver ads to consumers. To service its clients (including Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular Wireless), DR installed adware on millions of computers. The adware, which was undisclosed to users and difficult to remove, monitored the websites visited by the users and collected the information they typed into web forms. The NY AG filed a law suit alleging that DirectRevenue had violated New York consumer protection law, then pursued DirectRevenue's three major advertiser clients.

1 CA-CV 04-0823 (Arz. Crt. App.)

The Arizona Court of Appeal held that an interactive computer service provider could not be held liable for failing to remove allegedly defamatory content from its website.  In reaching this holding, the court concluded that the interactive computer service provider was immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

S122953 (Cal. Sup. Ct. November 20, 2006)

The California Supreme Court held that an individual user of an interactive computer service could not be held liable for posting allegedly defamatory content on third-party newsgroups.  The Court determined that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized individual users from liability for defamation when the users republished defamatory content on the Internet.

2005 WL 3312631 (S.D. Tex. 2005)
Sanchez operated a website containing allegedly libelous statements about Cisneros. Sanchez claimed that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) entirely preempted Cisneros's libel claims.

2005 WL 3005602 (D. Or. 2005)
Barnes's former boyfriend set up "profiles" about her on Yahoo!'s website. The profiles contained information about Barnes, appeared to have been posted by her, and included nude pictures of her and information about how to contact her at work.

392 F.Supp.2d 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)
Hammer entered agreement with Amazon, allowing him to sell his books on the website. An Illinois resident, Anthony Trendl, placed unfavorable reviews of Hammer's books on Amazon's website.

2005 WL 2240952 (W.D. Wis. 2005)
When Earthlink subscribers attempted to access Associated Banc-Corp.'s website, Earthlink's anti-phishing software incorrectly alerted the subscribers that the website was potentially dangerous and fraudulent, and prevented access to the site.

LG Berlin, No. 27 O 45/05
Berlin court found meta-search engine "Sharelook" liable for defamatory content based on its search results. When entering the term "naked" in the search engine, a link for an adult website would appear, listing television personality Babette Einstmann's name in connection with the site.

[2004] EWCA Civ. 1329 (10 October 2004) (Court of Appeal, UK)
UK Court of Appeal affirmed High Court decision that English courts are a proper forum to hear a libel case between two US residents concerning statements published on US-based websites. US resident Don King sued various US residents, including Lennox Lewis and his attorney, Judd Burstein, alleging libelous statements that were published on Internet websites.

A Pennsylvania federal court recently held that pictures of a private road and residence available on Google Maps do not give rise to common law claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, trespass or unjust enrichment.  Boring v. Google, Inc., No. 08-694, 2009 WL 383484 (W.D. Pa., Feb. 17, 2009).

2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003)
Federal
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website that allegedly published defamatory material provided by a third party is eligible for immunity under the Commmunications Decency Act (CDA). The case revolves around an email sent by Robert Smith claiming that the plaintiff Batzel was a descendant of Heinrich Himmler and possessed looted paintings.

No. 00-9220 (2nd Cir. 2003)
Federal
The Second Circuit applied the single publication rule to statements posted on the Internet. Following a broadcast of a news special alleging misconduct by the American military, John Plaster wrote a letter to the New York Times stating that the allegations were untrue and identifying Robert Van Buskirk as the source of the untrue allegations.

No. B160126 (Cal. Ct. App, 2d App. Dist., 2003)
CA
A California court ruled on Internet chat rooms and the First Amendment. Plaintiff Bidbay.com brought a suit for defamation against Bruce Spry for posting allegedly libelous statements in an online chat room.

No. 01-2340 (4th. Cir. 2002)
Federal
The Fourth Circuit has ruled that a Virgnia court does not have personal jurisdiction over two Connecticut newspapers. The plaintiff, Stanley Young, sued the newspapers for defamation after they published online articles criticizing the treatment of inmates in a Virginia prison supervised by Warden Young.

No. 01-10521 (5th Cir. 2002)
Federal
The Fifth Circuit ruled on jurisdiction in an Internet defamation case. Defendant Hart Lidov, a Massachusetts resident, posted on the Columbia University website an article claiming that Oliver Revell was part of a conspiracy that wilfully failed to stop the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.

No. C3-01-296 (Minn. 2002)
MN
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision regarding jurisdiction. Luban, a resident of Minnesota, repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking Griffis's professional credentials.

Case No. CV 01-0018 DT (CWx) C.D. Cal. 2002)
Federal
A federal court ruled on the application of the safe harbor of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Defendant operated a matchmaking website called matchmaker.

C.A. No. 01-2202 (E.D. Pa. 2002)
Federal
English Sports betting operated an offshore betting website. The New York defendant posted articles on the web, which described the plaintiff as having a "dark past" that included "two murders.

2001 Fla. LEXIS 449 (Fla 2001)
FL
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that AOL was entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Doe filed a lawsuit against AOL to recover for emotional injuries suffered by her 11 year old son.

2001 EWCA Civ. 1805 (England and Wales Court of Appeal, 2001)
Foreign
The Court of Appeal held that a newspaper's online archive does not enjoy a qualified privelege with respect to defamatory material. The court's ruling confirmed that defamatory content made available online will be considered to be republished each time that it is accessed by users.

(Santa Clara Cty, Dec. 2001)
CA
In one of the first Silicon Valley Internet libel cases to reach trial, a jury awarded $425,000 to Varian, the former employer of two disgruntled workers. The jury found that the two former employees had libeled Varian executives by posting more than 14,000 defamatory messages on over 100 different websites.

150 F. Supp. 2d 566 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
Federal
Robert Cuccioli, the star of the production Jekyll & Hyde, filed suit against the producer of the German version for using Cuccioli's likeness on merchandise in violation of New York law. The defendant was offering merchandise from a website in Bremen, Germany.

633 N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001)
MN
A Minnesota court ruled that Alabama had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who posted defamatory messages on the Internet. Luban, a resident of Minnesota, repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking Griffis's professional credentials.

French Supreme Court (France, 2001)
Foreign
The French Supreme Court issued a ruling concerning online defamation actions. The Court disagreed with a lower court's suggestion that posting defamatory material constituted a continuing offense, thereby making it possible to bring an action up to three months after the material was removed.

(Australia, 2001)
Foreign
An Australian court ruled that an Australian citizen may sue a US company in Australia for allegedly defamatory remarks in an online publication. Plaintiff Joe Gutnick filed suit alleging that an article published in the online version of Barron's falsely portrayed him as a con artist.

731 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
NY
The court upheld the dismissal of a defamation action against the State of New York. George Firth, the former director of the state's environmental conservation law enforcement division, alleged that he was libeled in a report prepared by the state Inspector General that had been posted on the state's website.

163 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D.S.D. 2001)
Federal
A federal court held that Kinko's, a commercial copy store, was not liable for defamation under the safe harbor provisons of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) 47 USC Sec. 230.

755 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. 2001)
IN
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that prohibited a former University of Evansville professor from creating websites that contained the names of university officers and faculty. While upholding the injunction, the court also found that the university itself, as a corporate entity, was not entitled to an invasion of privacy claim.

31 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)
WA
A Washington court held that Amazon.com was shielded by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and not liable for statements posted by a third party on its website.

Palmerston Northern Dist. Court (New Zealand, 2001)
Foreign
A New Zealand court awarded $42,000 against a website contributor for defamation. The court found Manawatu Internet Service director Alan Brown liable for defamation for posting on the web statements critical of Domainaz, a central domain name registry service.

No. 833021-5 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2001)
CA
Plaintiffs were doctors who ran websites that exposed health frauds. The defendants were advocates of alternative medicine. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants had published a number of defamatory statements on alternative medicine websites.

775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001)
NJ
The Superior Court affirmed a lower court ruling that Dendrite could not discover the name of an anonymous user of an Internet message board because it had failed to demonstrate any harm as a result of the user's postings. In reaching their decision, the court outlined a four step series of guidelines in balancing the defendant's First Amendment rights with the plainitffs right to proceed.

244 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2001)
Federal
The issue was whether the publication of names and addresses of abortion providers along with statements claiming the plaintiffs had committed crimes against humanity on defendant’s anti-abortion website was protected speech under the First Amendment. No actual threats were included on the website

2001 Va. LEXIS 38; 29 Media L. Rep. 1442 (2001)
VA
Anonymous publicly traded corporation filed a defamation action against an anonymous defendant, "John Doe." The Virginia Supreme Court refused to grant the corporation access to AOL's confidential subscriber information unless the firm agreed to reveal its identity.

CASE #: 00-CV-1155 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Federal
The Federal District Court dismissed this libel action, in favor of Doe and others that criticized Global Telemedia International on several Internet chat rooms. The Court found the statements to be opinion, and thus protected under California libel laws.

Court of Cessation, Rome (Italy, 2001)
Foreign
Overturning the decision of a lower tribunal, Italy's Court of Cessation held that it has jurisidction over foreign-based sites containing defamatory material because end-users connect from within Italy's territories. The suit involved a defamation action against a number of websites claiming plaintiff had kidnapped his daughters and was raising them in Genoa in defiance of Jewish law.

236 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2001)
Federal
Robert Konop sued his employer Hawaiian Airlines, alleging that management improperly accessed his secure website in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; Wiretap Act, 18 U.S. C.S. sec. 2701-2710.

Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d, decided Oct. 16, 2000
FL
In a defamation action, Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeals upheld an order for Yahoo! and America Online to reveal the identities of eight people who posted allegedly defamatory messages about the plaintiff. The postings claimed that Hvide may have violated securities violations while serving as CEO of Hvide Marine, Inc.

N.D. Cal., settled Oct. 4, 2000
Federal
Two San Francisco City College professors brought a defamation suit against the webmaster of Teacher Review, a website offering anonymous reviews of teachers. Several profane and homophobic reviews of the plaintiffs were posted on the site.

119 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
Federal
Plaintiff brought this cybersquatting, trademark infringement and defamation action after defendant posted web sites criticizing the plaintiff and her business practices. Embedded in the web sites were metatags incorporating the plaintiff's trademark name.

Ontario Superior Court (decided Sept. 6, 2000)
Foreign
Landmark Canadian case in which the Ontario Superior Court in Edmonton, Alberta ordered ISP iPRIMUS to identify an anonymous e-mailer in a defamation action. The e-mailer sent a message and confidential company files to 70 employees of a toy company criticizing the company president.

(Singapore, 2000)
Foreign
Trademark action against Video-Pro for its use of the domain name hardwarezone.com.sg. Plaintiff contends Video-Pro is passing itself off as the plaintiff's website by using the "sg" top level domain.

751 A.2d 538 (N.J. 2000)
NJ
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and remanded a case filed by a Continental pilot against her employer and individual pilots. The individual pilots allegedly posted derogatory remarks on a company on-line bulletin board after the plaintiff filed a sexual discrimination suit against Continental.

206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000)
Federal
BW&C sued for defamation, alleging that AOL published incorrect and defamatory information on the Internet concerning BW&C's publicly traded stock. Court held that AOL "clearly qualifies" for Internet service provider immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

TGI Nanterre (France, Mar. 13, 2000)
Foreign
French tennis star Amelie Mauresmo brought a trademark infringement and parasitic behavior action against an Israeli citizen who registered the domain names mauresmo.com and amelie mauresmo.

(N.Y. Court of Claims, March 2000).
NY
The plaintiff claimed that publication of an alleged libel on the Internet was "continuous publication," which would extend the statute of limitations. The court held that the statute would run from the date the material was first posted, rather than continuously.

683 N.Y.S.2d 557 (N.Y. App., 2d Div. 1998),
NY
Prodigy, an online service provider, could not be held liable for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of a third party's offensive email to a Boy Scout leader and making it appear that the email originated with the plaintiff. Analogizing Prodigy to a telephone carrier, the court held that Prodigy could not be considered a "publisher" because it did not have an editorial or participatory function in the dissemination of the defamatory material.

1999 U.S. Dist.. LEXIS 18081 (E.D. La. 1999)
Federal
Neither plaintiffs nor defendants were residents of forum state, but defendants allegedly defamed plaintiffs and caused damage in forum state. Court found one of two defendants was subject to jurisdiction when that defendant operated a Web site soliciting email comments, and a Louisiana resident sent an email to defendant, beginning a chain of email and telephone conversations relating to allegedly defamatory statements.

Filed Oct. 21, 1999
Unknown
Professor filed suit, seeking class action status on behalf of other professors who alleged they were anonymously defamed on web site. Site was set up as discussion forum for student of two universities, and was not operated by universities.

No. 21942 (Va. Cir. Ct., Loudon Cty., June 24, 1999)
VA
Pennsylvania plaintiff in defamation case could not assert jurisdiction in Virginia based upon defendant's use of Virginia-based America Online to post allegedly defamatory statements on the Internet. Court dismissed case and denied request for subpoena to AOL to obtain identity of defendant.

(Cal. Sup. Ct., June 14, 1999)
CA
Judge allowed plaintiff to issue subpoenas to third party, Yahoo, seeking the identity of the person posting messages critical of Xircom on Yahoo bulletin board. According to Xircom, the messages (which alleged to be posted by a company employee) were defamatory.

322 N.J. Super. 187 (App. Div. 1999)
NJ
Airline pilot sued airline for sex discrimination, and sued other pilots for alleged defamatory statements posted on company internal electronic bulletin board, viewable only by flight crews. Defendant pilots were not based in New Jersey or residents of the state, and there was no evidence that postings were targeted at New Jersey.

72 Ca. App. 4th 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)
CA
Steven Rambam sued New-York-based Jewish Defense Organization in Los Angeles court for allegedly defamatory statements. Rambam alleged jurisdiction in California because JDO used two California-based companies to host its web site.

Docket #: 99-CV-1517 (D. Md. 1999)
Unknown
Carnegie International filed suit in federal court in Baltimore on May 28, 1999, against several individuals who posted messages on the Internet accusing company officials of insider trading. The messages urged a class action suit against the company.

68 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999)
Federal
Texas defendants were subject to jurisdiction in Virginia when they used Virginia-based America Online to post messages to USENET that allegedly defamed a Virginia resident. The court noted that the AOL facilities in Virginia were integral to the act of publishing the material.

Case No.: 1:1999cv01021 (Fed. Dist. Ct.1999)
Federal
Suit filed in federal court by FedTrust alleges that employees of Specialty, a competitor, posted messages on eBay post-auction feedback center making libelous statements about FedTrust manager, resulting in lost sales when bidders backed out of FedTrust transactions. FedTrust has not yet named eBay as a defendant, believing it may be shielded by provisions of Telecommunications Reform Act that shield ISPs from liability for messages posted by users.

64 F. Supp. 440 (E.D. Pa. 1999)
Federal
Pennsylvania state court determined that jurisdiction was improper in Pennsylvania over a non-Pennsylvania resident-defendant who posted allegedly defamatory statements on the Internet and to several listservs. The court held that the postings were insufficient to exercise specific jurisdiction in that they were similar to "passive" advertisements and because they were not targeted at Pennsylvania residents.

Marin Supr. Ct. filed 4/12/99
Unknown
A suit was filed against 100 unnamed defendants alleging defamation and unfair business practices for messages posted on Yahoo! bulletin boards. Plaintiffs allege that defendants posted the messages to manipulate the stock or to hurt the company.

ondon High Court, U.K. 3/26/99
Foreign
ISP-defendant who did not remove a defamatory statement after being notified about it three times could not claim an "innocent dissemination" defense under U.K.

(W.D. Wash. filed 3/8/99)
Federal
Plaintiff filed suit against ten "John Does" in a slander suit based on falsehoods posted on Yahoo! message boards. Plaintiff argues that the defendants are using the anonymity afforded by the Internet to damage the reputation and undermine plaintiff's business.

687 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. 1999)
NY
Plaintiff's publicity rights under NY Civil Rights Law § 51 were not violated when her name was used on a Web site in a fleeting and incidental manner and not to directly promote the organization. The Web site, maintained by a third party and based upon outdated information, listed her name as a contact person for the former employer.

S.D.N.Y., filed July 30, 1998
Federal
Film maker Peter Hall sued his Internet service provider for libel after it erroneously terminated his account for alleged spamming. The suit claims damage to his reputation as well as breach of contract and economic harm arising from the wrongful suspension of access to his email account.

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20972 (W.D.N.C. 1998)
Federal
A North Carolina artist and political candidate filed suit against defendant operator of an on-line news site that posted an allegedly defamatory article. The suit seeks $30 million in damages.

No. BC 184799 (L.A. Supr. Ct. 6/11/98)
CA
Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support a cause of action against defendant ISP. That, combined with plaintiff's admission that defendant ISP played no role in creating or developing allegedly libelous material, led court to dismiss the action against the ISP under the "safe harbor" provisions of the Communications Decency Act.

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, Ref. 55181/98, No. 1/JP (France, 6/9/98)
Foreign
Under French law, an Internet Service Provider is responsible for the morality of the content distributed via the client-operated Web sites it hosts, and may be liable for violations of privacy thereon. French model claimed the ISP violated her privacy and damaged her professional reputation by allowing a subscriber to publish nude photographs of her on a Web site.

Filed (W.D. Wash. 1998)
Federal
IEG filed suit against defendants Pamela Lee Andersen and her former husband for violating the settlement agreement in the dispute over plaintiff's posting of videotapes allegedly showing defendants engaged in sex acts. Defendants allegedly wrote threatening letters to IEG's distributors.

5 F.Supp. 2d 823 (C.D.Cal. 1998)
Federal
Preliminary injunction issued barring Web site operator from making available on its Web site still images from plaintiff's home sex video. The court held that the nature of the Internet market for adult materials is such that even the display of brief still images from the tape would harm the market for the copyrighted work, thus precluding a finding of fair use.

992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)
Federal
In a defamation case, District of Columbia's long arm statute and Due Process requirements were satisfied and personal jurisdiction was proper over an Internet-gossip purveyor.

(Superior Ct., San Francisco, 1998)
CA
Award for defamation arising from defendant's allegedly calling plaintiff a liar in a public online forum overturned on appeal. San Francisco Superior Court ordered plaintiff to pay defendant $221 in attorneys' fees and legal costs.

26 Med. L. Rptr. 1185 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
Federal
No jurisdiction in California over French publishers of magazine Paris Match in defamation action. Publishers' activities were not purposefully directed to California, since the issue in which the allegedly defamatory report appeared had only limited distribution in California, and the publisher's use of an Internet Web site to promote its publication was merely passive advertising.

(High Court of Justice (England, filed 10/97)
Foreign
British subject's lawsuit against an American university for allegedly defamatory remarks made about him to an Internet newsgroup by a student using the university's server. Plaintiff has also filed a similar claim against the University of Minnesota.

(D.N.H. filed 9/17/97)
Federal
Lawsuit alleges that defendants posted false information about plaintiff company on the Internet in an attempt to drive down stock prices. Suit alleges unfair competition as well as defamation.

25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997), jurisdiction accepted, 729 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1999)
FL
Service provider liability shield provision of Communications Decency Act protected AOL from liability for subscriber's use of chat room to advertise pornographic images of 11-year-old boy. Opinion relies on District Court decision in Zeran v. AOL.

(N.Y.Supreme .Ct. filed 3/24/97)
NY
Defense alleges that plaintiff's defamation action is time-barred for failure to file within a year of publication of the allegedly defamatory article. Because the article appeared in hard copy on 3/22/96, but was available on AOL on 3/21/96, the question has become whether availability on an online service constitutes a "publication" that commences the running of the statute of limitations.

129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. Va. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)
Federal
America Online (AOL) was not liable for allegedly defamatory postings by one of its subscribers. Plaintiff maintained that AOL was negligent in permitting anonymous postings by an AOL subscriber accusing plaintiff of publishing materials "glorifying" the Oklahoma City bombing.

Superior Ct., San Francisco, 1997
CA
Plaintiff, a pagan cult, sought damages from defendant Internet Service Provider on grounds that defendant had failed to take action against a subscriber who sent messages to a Usenet group allegedly defaming plaintiffs by associating them with a previous child-abuse investigation. The court dismissed the action under the Communications Decency Act's "safe harbor" provisions for Internet Service Providers, citing the rule in Zeran v. AOL.

Human Rights Commission of Canada (1997)
Foreign
Anti-defamation advocate filed complaint against Holocaust-denier, seeking to enjoin defendant's continued posting of a Web site describing the Holocaust as "the lie of the century." The complaint reportedly alleges conspiracy rather than violation of Canada's "anti-hate" laws.

No. 96-10955C (Tex. Dallas County Dist. Ct. 10/14/96)
TX
Temporary restraining order issued to protect Internet service provider from repeated harm from Internet user, including personal and commercial defamation, threat, violation of privacy and other abuses.

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21757 and 21759 (S.D. Cal. 1996)
Federal
The fact that an allegedly defamatory article in a Canadian newspaper was available on a web site accessible in California was not, alone, enough to establish California jurisdiction, although jurisdiction might lie if it could be shown that the publisher knew and intended that the effects of the article be felt in the forum state.

89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996)
Federal
Ohio federal district court had personal jurisdiction over Texas defendant whose only contact with forum state was contract with plaintiff CompuServe to distribute defendant's software to other CompuServe subscribers; reversing 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7530 (S.D.Oh. 1995).

(D. Ind. 1996) (no published opinion)
Federal
Authorized licensees of James Dean rights of publicity sued owners of the "American Legends" home page for establishing an unauthorized link to plaintiffs' "official" James Dean page, maintaining that material on defendants' page is disparaging in nature. Settled without opinion.

BC153274 (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 7/5/96)
CA
Action alleging violation of California Right of Publicity statute arising from unauthorized posting of fashion models' photos to CompuServe's photo library. Although Right of Publicity is expressly a commercial right, plaintiffs allege that making their photos available for downloading by CompuServe subscribers, who pay CompuServe by the minute for access, constituted a commercial use of the photos.

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5710 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Federal
Summary judgment and permanent injunction issued against operators of web site containing Three Stooges images and offering Three Stooges merchandise without license or authorization from owners of Three Stooges' commercial rights.

947 F. Supp. 413 (D. Ariz. 1996)
Federal
Nonresident defendant's allegedly defamatory email, web site message and news forum posting about resident plaintiff were "directed at" Arizona, thus establishing basis for personal jurisdiction.

626 N.Y.S.2d 694 (Sup. Ct. 1995)
NY
Online reproduction of photograph of talk show host Howard Stern with backside exposed was protected First Amendment expression.

[filed 11/95, Cook County, Ill.; no published opinion]
IL
America Online subscriber criticized resort and its diving instructor in anonymous posting. Resort sued service provider to obtain subscriber's name and address to facilitate legal action for defamation.

535 N.W.2d 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995)
WI
Online discussion group was not a "publication" for purposes of Wisconsin's requirement that libel plaintiff seek a retraction before filing suit.

Civ. Action No. 26753 (Cuyahoga Cty., Ohio 1994)
OH
Defamation action over remarks made in defendant's Internet newsletter. Case settled without opinion.

1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
NY
Summary judgment denied, holding that online service provider could be liable for allegedly defamatory statements made by subscriber in newsgroup, where provider had held itself out as exercising control over content of materials and features available to subscribers to its service. After case settled, Judge Stuart Ain refused to vacate his earlier opinion.

No. 1994 of 1993 (W. Austl. Sup. Ct., Australia, 3/31/94)
Foreign
Online dispute between two Australian anthropologists which led one to impugn the professionalism of the other ended in stipulated court order awarding damages for defamation.

Civ. Action No. 069400012 (D.N.J. 1992)
Federal
Online defamation case arising from allegedly disparaging remarks made on Prodigy's "Money Line" bulletin board. Prodigy was not named as a defendant; case settled without opinion.

776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
Federal
Online service provider is more like a distributor than a publisher, and thus not liable for allegedly defamatory statements made by subscriber in posting to newsgroup.