United States: Actions to Identify Anonymous Internet Posters on the Rise

Originally published April 13, 2011

Keywords: Internet, anonymous posts, First Amendment, Dendritep>

Technology that provides a platform for Internet users to express their views on a range of topics has proliferated over the past several years. Many of these technologies, such as financial message boards, blogs, social networking websites and e-mail, allow users, or "posters," to express themselves anonymously by using pseudonyms traceable only through the hosts of the sites or their Internet service providers. As such speech has increased, so to have actions against Internet-based companies—such as Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft—seeking to discover the identity of someone who posted allegedly defamatory material. But courts have adopted a standard that creates challenges to obtaining this information.

Although some plaintiffs bring defamation actions to redress a legitimate injury to reputation, courts have recognized that the primary goal of many plaintiffs in the "new breed" of defamation actions is to ridicule, harass and silence an anonymous speaker and hopefully silence others like him or her as well.1 Internet-based companies have an incentive to protect their users from such baseless and harmful attacks as many of these companies generate a significant portion of their revenue through users browsing and interacting with their website. A perception among Internet users that a company has failed to adequately protect their anonymity would likely lead to lower website traffic and ultimately adversely impact that company's revenue. On the other hand, individuals and companies may sometimes need to identify an anonymous poster in order to protect their legitimate pecuniary and proprietary interests against defamatory speech posted on the Internet.

The US Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects a person's right to speak anonymously and that those protections fully extend to speech on the Internet.2 The right to speak anonymously, however, is not absolute. An anonymous speaker, like a known one, has no First Amendment right to engage in defamation,3 and parties certainly have a right to seek redress for defamatory communications. In light of these competing interests, courts have sought to adopt an approach that appropriately balances a person's right to speak anonymously on the Internet against another person's right to protect his or her reputation.

One approach, adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Dendrite International Inc. v. Doe No. 3,4 and later modified by the Delaware Supreme Court in Doe v. Cahill,5 has become the benchmark that courts consider when deciding whether to reveal the name of an anonymous Internet poster who allegedly defamed a plaintiff. This is now commonly known as the Dendrite- Cahill standard.

The Dendrite court adopted a four-part test. A plaintiff must (i) provide sufficient notice to anonymous posters that they are the subject of an application to disclose their identity; (ii) identify the exact statements that purportedly constitute actionable speech; and (iii) provide the court with sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. Thereafter, (iv) the court must balance the 2 Mayer Brown | Actions to Identify Anonymous Internet Posters on the Rise defendant's First Amendment right against the strength of the prima facie case presented.6

The Cahill court adopted a modified Dendrite standard consisting only of Dendrite requirements one and three: a defamation plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to notify the defendant about the action and must support his or her claim with prima facie evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.7 The Cahill court said that the other two Dendrite requirements were subsumed in the summary judgment inquiry.8

The most recent decisions considering whether to allow discovery into an anonymous Internet poster's identity have adopted approaches consistent with the Dendrite-Cahill standard.9 For instance, in USA Technologies, Inc. v. Doe,10 the Northern District of California applied a "streamlined version" of the Dendrite standard in quashing a subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous poster. Under that standard, a plaintiff must, among other things, adduce competent evidence to support a prima facie defamation claim.11 The court found that the plaintiff technology company failed to satisfy this requirement because the statements someone posted on its Yahoo! message board—that its CEO was "fleecing humanity" and a "known liar," and that the company's practices were "legalized highway robbery" and a "soft Ponzi" scheme—constituted mere "rhetorical hyperbole" and were thus non-actionable.12

The Western District of Washington also adopted a "Dendrite-style test" requiring a plaintiff to produce prima facie evidence to support all of the elements of a defamation claim.13 Applying this standard, the court quashed a subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous owner and operator of an Internet "gripe site" dedicated principally to disparaging the plaintiff marketing company.14

Courts that have not adopted an approach consistent with Dendrite-Cahill have adopted approaches that could be considered just as demanding. For example, in Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co.,15 the Appellate Court of Illinois recently held that a petition seeking the identity of an anonymous defamation defendant must (i) be verified; (ii) state, with particularity, facts that would establish a cause of action for defamation; and (iii) seek only the identity of the potential defendant. Also, (iv) the court must hold a hearing at which it determines that the petition sufficiently states a defamation claim. The petition is subjected to the same level of scrutiny afforded the sufficiency of a complaint under Illinois's motion to dismiss statute.16 The court applied this standard in granting the plaintiffs' petition, which sought the identity of several anonymous posters who suggested that the plaintiffs bribed public officials. The court found that the complained-of statements "clearly [went] beyond rhetorical hyperbole and opinion" and were therefore actionable.17

The Dendrite-Cahill standard and similar approaches have proven to be a significant obstacle to defamation plaintiffs obtaining the identity of anonymous posters. Both the Dendrite and Cahill courts declined to unmask an Internet poster,18 and in decisions published since Cahill, only a few courts, such as Maxon, have ordered that the identity of a poster be revealed.19 So it appears that courts are carefully reviewing requests to discover anonymous Internet posters' identities and giving significant consideration to these posters' constitutional right to speak anonymously.

When faced with a legal action seeking the identity of an anonymous Internet poster, a company should first determine whether it actually has information that could be used to identify the poster. If so, the company should then consider the following:

  • The standard applied in the relevant jurisdiction when considering whether to reveal the identity of an anonymous poster;
  • Which jurisdiction provides the substantive law;
  • The requisite defamation elements in that jurisdiction;
  • Whether the plaintiff can provide evidence supporting each element;
  • The defamatory character20 and context of the complained-of statement;
  • Whether the plaintiff would be required to show actual malice, i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of falsity;
  • Whether the statement is subject to a privilege;
  • Whether the plaintiff can allege actual damages; and
  • Whether the company is willing to draw public attention to the statement.

After considering these factors, the company will then be able to properly assess whether to challenge the action.

An individual or company deciding whether to seek the identity of an anonymous Internet poster's identity should consider these same factors, plus: (i) whether the person or company that has identifying information for the anonymous poster is readily identifiable; (ii) whether the anonymous poster can be identified in a specific manner (e.g., by his or her "screen name"); (iii) whether the exact poster of the allegedly defamatory statement can be clearly identified; and (iv) whether the statement can be set forth with specificity.

Endnotes

1 See, e.g., Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 457 (Del. 2005) (quoting Lyrissa B. Lidsky, Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Disclosure in Cyberspace, 49 Duke L.J. 855, 890 (2000)).

2 Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712, 717 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 199-200 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 341-51, 357 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65 (1960); Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)).

3 Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266 (1952) ("Libelous utterances [are] not . . . within the area of constitutionally protected speech . . . ."); Cahill v. John Doe- Number One, 879 A.2d 943, 950 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005).

4 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).

5 884 A.2d 451.

6 Dendrite, 775 A.2d at 760-61.

7 Cahill, 884 A.2d at 460-61. The court also recognized that it was unreasonable to expect a plaintiff at an early stage in the litigation to prove actual malice where this condition is required to sustain a defamation claim (e.g., where the plaintiff is a public figure). Thus, it found that a plaintiff must only introduce evidence "for all elements of a defamation claim within the plaintiff's control." Id. at 463.

8 Id. at 461.

9 See, e.g., Mortg. Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Indus., Inc., 999 A.2d 184, 192-93 (N.H. 2010); Solers, Inc. v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941, 954 (D.C. 2009); Indep. Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432, 450-51 (Md. 2009); Krinsky v. Doe 6, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 243-45 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); Mobilisa, 170 P.3d at 719-21; Reunion Indus., Inc. v. Doe 1, 80 Pa. D. & C.4th 449, 453-56 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2007); Polito v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 78 Pa. D. & C.4th 328, 335-42 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2004).

10 713 F. Supp. 2d 901, 907 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

11 Id.

12 Id. at 905-06, 908.

13 SaleHoo Group, Ltd. v. ABC Co., 722 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1215 (W.D. Wash. 2010).

14 Id. at 1212-13, 1218.

15 929 N.E.2d 666, 673 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).

16 Id. at 674; see also Cohen v. Google, 887 N.Y.S.2d 424, 426 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) (requiring the plaintiff's petition seeking the identity of an anonymous blogger to "demonstrate[] . . . a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong").

17 Id. at 677-78.

18 See Dendrite, 775 A.2d at 771-72; Cahill, 884 A.2d at 467- 68.

19 Compare SaleHoo Group, Ltd, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1218, USA Techs., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 2d at 909, Indep. Newspapers, 966 A.2d at 456 (denial of motion to quash reversed), Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, 596 F. Supp. 2d 128, 133-34 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing complaint), Krinsky, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 251-52 (denial of motion to quash reversed), and Reunion Indus., 80 Pa. D. & C.4th at 456-57 (motion for protective order granted) with Maxon, 929 N.E.2d at 677-78, and Cohen, 887 N.Y.S.2d at 427-30 (petition granted).

20 The "defamatory character" includes whether the statement is obviously defamatory on its face, whether the statement is true or substantially true, whether the statement constitutes an expression of opinion and whether the statement is reasonably capable of an innocent construction.

Learn more about our Commercial Litigation practice.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Copyright 2011. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, Mayer Brown JSM and/or Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. All rights reserved.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions