Mr. Hermann has defended a number of Cyber Libel cases in state and federal courts throughout the country. Cyber libel a/k/a Cybersmear occurs when someone posts a false factual negative statement on the Internet.  Cybersmears often occur as a result of statements posted in a web log (blog) or in an Internet forum.  While the statements of some bloggers and/or forum posters may include exaggerated claims or strongly worded opinions other statements may include personal attacks, threats, or accusations which may trigger liability under the legal theories of defamation, false light, and/or invasion of privacy. The Golden Rule of electronic speech is - Never say anything online that you wouldn’t shout to the rest of the world at the top of your lungs. Notable Cases include:

 

Alvis Coatings, Inc. v. Does One Through Ten

United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Case No. 3:04cv374.  Alvis Coatings was a manufacturer of an epoxy “Spray-on-Siding” used in place of wood or metal siding products. In November of 2004,  Alvis filed a John Doe lawsuit in North Carolina Federal Court against ten anonymous defendants, alleging that certain anonymous postings about its products violated the Lanham Act and North Carolina state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices, unfair competition and defamation. In its lawsuit Alvis alleged that one or more of the postings which were featured on message boards, including bobvila.com and oldhouse.com, falsely portrayed Alvis’s products as “Duron’s siding in a can, privately labeled by Alvis” and that Alvis’s officers and dealers were “criminals.”

After filing suit, Alvis successfully obtained an order to conduct limited and expedited discovery and thereby obtained from the operators of bobvila.com and oldhouse.com the identity of two relevant ISPs, Roadrunner and Comcast. On October 20, 2004, Mr. Hermann filed a motion to quash the subpoena on behalf of one of the “Doe” defendants claiming that the subpoena threatened individual’s First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Shortly thereafter, Alvis withdrew their case against all of the Doe defendants.

 

Ford Motor Co v. John Does 1-30

United States District Court for the District of Utah Case No. 2:04cv00440-BSJ. In response to several anonymous online forum posts in which the poster submitted negative commentary about Ford’s economic viability and/or product line, Ford filed suit seeking to compel the identity of the individual submitting the online posts. In representing one of the Doe Defendants, Mr. Hermann challenged the factual and legal sufficiency of the complaint alleging that the statements of the anonymous poster constituted constitutionally protected free speech. Shortly thereafter, Ford withdrew their case against Mr. Hermann’s Doe Defendant.

 

John Doe/Jane Doe Subpoena Defense

Mr. Hermann has defended a number of “Doe” defendants in state and federal courts throughout the country. In response to the threat of negative commentary and/or postings on the internet, a number of corporate Plaintiffs have bombarded the legal system with thousands of “John or Jane Doe” complaints. The purpose of the lawsuits is to invoke the subpoena power of the court and compel the identity of the on-line individual. Once the identity of the individual is revealed, the corporate Plaintiff uses the threat of litigation to retaliate against an outspoken online critic. In connection with a number of electronic advocacy groups, Mr. Hermann has represented a number of “Doe” defendants seeking to have their on-line activity remain anonymous. Notable Cases include:

 

Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. John Does 1-4

Thomas M. Cooley Law School filed suit against four anonymous bloggers for allegedly defamatory statements on various internet blogs. Mr. Hermann represented one of the individual Doe Defendant who was the author of a blog site entitled “The Thomas M. Cooley Law School Scam.” In his blog, the author posted his scathing critique of the deceptive practices perpetrated by Cooley Law School along with supporting statistical information about their low graduation, bar passage, and post-graduation employment rates. Cooley Law School subpoenaed the account records from the Blog Site in order to “unmask” the identity of the unknown Doe defendant On behalf of one of the Doe Defendants, Mr. Herman challenged the legal sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint asserting that the statements of the anonymous poster constituted constitutionally protected free speech and sought to quash the subpoena seeking the identity of the unknown Doe Defendant. The effect of the lawsuit and efforts to obtain the identity of the anonymous bloggers created a “Streisand Effect” in which the publicity of the lawsuit garnered enormous media attention to the blog site making it the most viewed internet sites related to Cooley Law school ahead of Cooley’s own web site traffic. The case proceeded to the Michigan Court of Appeals on an interlocutory appeal in order to address the whether certain procedural protections should be afforded to protect the anonymity of the Doe Defendants. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Trial Court with instructions that it should consider the implications of the Doe Defendants right to engage in anonymously protected speech including whether to allow for a protective order in order to preserve the Doe Defendants anonymity until such time as the sufficiency of the claims asserted by Cooley Law School could be determined. The case represented one of the first Appellate decisions in Michigan addressing the rights and protections afforded to anonymous speech. The case was later dismissed by Cooley Law School after it was unsuccessful in “unmasking” the identity of the anonymous Doe Defendants.