Online Publisher Not Subject to Injunction Against Original Author of Defamatory Posts

Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “Communications Decency Act update: Plaintiffs seeking to get defamatory posts removed from an online website have often been stymied by the Communications Decency Act which protects the web host from suit for publishing third party posts. However, for some time, plaintiffs have been getting around this by seeking an injunction against the original author of the post and then asking the court to enforce this injunction against the website operator under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. For more on this strategy, see Eric Goldman’s blog post of November 10, 2009.

However in a December 21, 2009 ruling a federal judge in the Eastern District of Illinois ruled that this strategy violates federal law.  See Blockowicz v. Williams . . . The plaintiffs in this case brought a defamation against the defendants, Joseph Williams and Michelle Ramey, for statements published on various websites, including the Ripoff Report (www.ripoffreport.com).  The defendants apparently never answered the complaint and the court entered a default judgment against them, requiring them to remove their defamatory postings from the websites.  However, the plaintiffs were never able to contact the defendants, and the posts remained on-line.”

See “How Section 230 is like arson laws when it comes to enjoining website operators.”

Order to Shut Down Websites Critical of Apex Technology Group is Dangerous and Wrong

Electronic Frontier Foundation:  “Over the holidays, a New Jersey court issued an order requiring upstream providers to shut down three anti-H1-B websites that is deeply dangerous and wrong. The order not only tries to remove allegedly defamatory messages but also requires a complete shutdown of the websites and even purports to require the cooperation of the hosting companies and domain registrars of the websites to do so and for other service providers to identify anonymous speakers.  The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Apex Technology Group, is a staffing and consulting services company.”

Browsewrap Website Terms and Conditions Enforceable

Internet Cases:  “The Missouri Court of Appeals has issued an opinion that reflects a realistic grasp of how people use the web, and also serves as a definitive nod to self-responsibility. The court refused to accept a website end user’s argument that she should not be bound by the website terms and conditions that were presented to her in the familiar ‘browsewrap’ format. . . . At the point where she submitted her contact information to facilitate the signup process, she was presented with a link to the website’s terms and conditions. We’ve all seen this countless times — the link read, “By submitting you agree to the Terms of Use.”  Major admitted she never clicked on the link and therefore never read the terms and conditions.”  The case is Major v. McAllister.

Court Refuses Request to Unmask Anonymous Blogger who Was Not a Party to a Suit

The Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “Internet defamation law update:  Courts around the U.S. regularly grant requests by plaintiffs to force publishers to disclose the identity of anonymous bloggers — albeit, often not until the plaintiff has jumped over some rather stringent procedural hurdles.  However, in a recent case, a federal judge in Missouri denied such a request, on the grounds that the plaintiff’s need for the blogger’s testimony did not outweigh the blogger’s First Amendment right of anonymity . Sedersten v. Taylor, W.D.Mo., 6:09-cv-03031 . . . . This decision is not an outlier, but represents principles governing such cases that are recognized by most courts.”

What are the Threshold Requirements for a CFAA Civil Suit?

The Digital Media Lawyer Blog:  “The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030) is a broadly written statute permits private citizens to recover damages for a wide variety of computer-related injuries.  I use the amorphous term ‘computer-related,’ because CFAA permits recoveries for wrongful acts committed against computers, or for wrongful acts committed using computers.  In some cases, CFAA may permit recovery for acts that have not been recognized under state law — such as the unauthorized accessing or obtaining information from a computer.  Use of CFAA can also permit a plaintiff to bring her suit in federal court, a favorable litigation strategy under many circumstances.  The CFAA was originally written as a criminal statute, and only secondarily extended to permit private claims.  And, it imposes a series of hurdles — in my view, small hurdles — that must be crossed on civil claims.  A recent dismissal of a CFAA class action suit provides an excellent guide to these minimum requirements.”

Go to Top