Trash Talk
Smart companies go online to confront anonymous defamers.
September 30, 2006 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
While pursuing a number of copyright infringement claims, the Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC) stumbled across an online hobbyist forum.
The forum encouraged users to discuss embroidery-related topics, including the ESPC's infringement lawsuits, which forum participants heavily criticized. In particular, one anonymous user wrote, “the attorney for the plaintiff obtains default judgments without the defendant ever receiving notice of the lawsuit that was filed.”
The ESPC, which is a trade group of embroidery software companies, considered such statements defamatory. So on June 2006 it subpoenaed the site's ISP for the identities of the anonymous members. That caught the attention of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a First Amendment rights group, which sought to quash the subpoena.
“Courts have held in the past that the First Amendment does protect the right to speak and associate anonymously,” says Corynne McSherry, an EFF staff attorney.
At press time, the ESPC was considering withdrawing its subpoena.
As the group is discovering, suing online defamers is not easy. Moreover, advances in Internet technology, including message boards, blogs and social networking sites, have increased defamation online. In-house counsel can't possibly monitor every comment. Rather than fight a losing battle against online speech, experts suggest finding creative ways to join in the online chatter.
“Whether participation equates to reading online communications or becoming actively involved is a decision that in-house counsel will have to make,” says Denise Howell, a lawyer and author of the “Bag and Baggage” legal blog. “Barring participation, I don't think there is any way to deal with this issue.”
Litigation Breakdown
There are a number of reasons why filing a lawsuit is no longer an effective way to stop defamation on the Internet.
First, the advent of blogs and social networking sites offers millions of users a platform for their opinions. According to Technorati, a blog search engine, there are more than 50 million blogs. Myspace, a social networking site, claims more than 100 million users. As a result, is it virtually impossible for companies to effectively monitor all of these platforms for defamatory speech.
“These issues are only going to explode as everyone gains an online presence,” says Martin Samson, a partner at Phillips Nizer in New York. “In-house counsel will wonder how on earth they are going to monitor this issue, which in the past rarely occurred.”
Second, because users can easily transfer information from one Web site to another, successfully litigating one defamation claim doesn't rid cyberspace of the statement.
“Comments can be copied and pasted to other sites, and entire Web sites can be mirrored elsewhere,” says Evan Brown, an associate at Hinshaw & Culbertson. “The reality is that deleting a defamatory statement across the entire Internet might be impossible.”
Finally, 24 states have enacted anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws. These laws make it more difficult to bring a defamation claim by providing defendants with a special motion that stays all discovery until the court assesses the claim.
“Anti-SLAPP statutes essentially cut the lawsuit off early,” McSherry says. “The defendant can say, 'This is a SLAPP suit,' and it puts the burden on the other side to prove it's not.”
Going Online
Because litigation is no longer an effective means to combat defamation on the Web, experts suggest companies create a presence on the Internet.
“By participating online, you're going to be much more aware of what the public is saying about your company,” Howell says. “You will also be able to more effectively address damaging statements.”
Participation can take several forms. First, companies can post responses to negative comments on Internet message boards and blog comment pages.
“Sometimes these misperceptions can be remedied by making a consistent, principled response,” Brown says. “Legal should sit down with the marketing department and draft a response refuting the poster's claims.”
A more proactive method of participation is a company-hosted blog where employees can write on topics ranging from new innovations to corporate policy. This allows the company to voice its opinions before the anonymous posters do. The public can comment on these blogs, giving the company full control over the comments.
“Corporate blogs allow the public to go directly to the company to air their grievances,” Howell says. “This way, companies can engage the person directly.”
Twenty-nine of the Fortune 500 companies are already blogging, according to Socialtext, a provider of enterprise wikis. These include Microsoft Corp., Intel Corp. and IBM Inc. Sun Microsystems Inc. recently became the first company to have its general counsel, Mike Dillon, publicly blog.
Hiding Identity
Companies that still wish to sue may run into one more hurdle. To file a suit, you first need to identify the defendant. Traditionally companies have unmasked anonymous posters by subpoenaing ISPs. However, with the rise of municipal Wi-Fi and public hotspots, not even an ISP will be able to reveal a user's identity. Public Wi-Fi networks assign users a shared IP address, which ISPs can't trace to the original user. Technology research firm Gartner Group estimates that by 2007 there will be 191,280 hotspots.
“Wi-Fi networks are going to lead to an enormous amount of anonymous defamation,” says Karl Kronenberger, a San Francisco-based attorney who specializes in Internet law. “What we see now really is the tip of the iceberg.”
In-house counsel need to act now to address this looming problem. For many, this means thinking outside the box.
“This is not something that in-house counsels' past experiences will prepare them for,” Samson says. “They are going to have to think creatively.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250