An interesting decision on a motion to dismiss in this libel lawsuit.
Plastic surgeon David Shifrin is suing commenters who posted negative reviews based on an ex-patient's critical YouTube video. (There are also libel claims in the lawsuit as well.)
The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its earlier precedents denying non-media speakers certain First Amendment libel law protections.
My article was about Kelly Hyman v. Alex Daoud, in which a court order seemed to command all Internet "services" to remove material that mentions plaintiff or her husband (retired federal bankruptcy judge Paul Hyman).
I'm serializing a forthcoming law review article of mine.
Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas has been appointed to hear the case.
I've been seeing many such libel lawsuits recently, though only a few have gone so far as to yield a verdict for the libel plaintiff.
though the case can be refiled in state court.
If this decision stands, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have a chance to reconsider the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" requirement in this case (not that it was likely to in any event).
Twitter's labeling, John Paul Mac Isaac contends, implicitly accused him of being a hacker, and was therefore libel.
What? Is there something supposedly wrong with liking to talk a lot?
We've just filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Oregon Supreme Court to protect such equal rights, and overturn Oregon precedent that denies such rights.
at least in the context of a Facebook squabble.
A company had a trademark canceled in a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board proceeding, based on what the Board described as the company's "delaying tactics, including the willful disregard of Board orders." The TTABlog posted about it, and some commenters criticized the company's lawyer, who sued them for libel.
An interesting, though unsurprising, decision in a case brought by prominent Russian businessmen over the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
So says the Delaware Court of Chancery: "If the information currently redacted remains so, the public will have no means to understand the dispute MetTel has asked the Court to adjudicate."
Louisiana is one of about a dozen states that has a criminal libel statute; my sense is that, throughout the country, there are likely about 20-30 criminal libel prosecutions per year.
Past perfect, libel-proof plaintiffs, substantial truth, “actual malice,” statutes of limitations, and more.
Lawyer Gets Temporary Injunction Against Gripe Site That Says He's a "Fraud," "Cowardly," "Cannot Be Trusted"
But I think the First Amendment prohibits such pretrial injunctions, and in any event the injunction targets opinions and not just false factual assertions.
so long as the user's true identity is unknown to the audience, and the pseudonym has no "legally cognizable independent reputation" (as when the pseudonym is used by an author to sell books).
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
The Washington Supreme Court overrules a trial court's order requiring the removal of one such statement; but what should the general rule on this be?
Officer Saqueta Williams had been on the DA's "Do Not Call [to Testify] List" because of alleged assault during an off-duty incident (as to which she was later acquitted)—she alleges the documentary falsely implied that she was on the list because she was "dirty and dishonest."
over allegedly false fact-checking "charging [Owens] with spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in 'an attempt to downplay the severity' of the pandemic."
Minnesota Order Banning "False or Defamatory Statements" Limited to Knowingly False And Defamatory Statements
So says the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as to a "harassment restraining order."
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.