Internet Defamation Removal Attorneys

Internet Defamation Removal Attorneys

A Blog Focused on Strategies for Deleting Damaging Online Content

Category Archives: Communications Decency Act

Subscribe to Communications Decency Act RSS Feed

Best Practices, Worst Practices for Responding to Internet Defamation

Posted in Communications Decency Act, Defamation Removal, Internet Defamation General
There are a number of ways in which one can respond to internet defamation. There are also a number of ways not to respond. Below is an overview of some different response options that affected parties should and should not consider. How not to respond to online defamation We have said repeatedly on our blog… Continue Reading

Federal Court Rules Against Ripoff Report in CDA Case

Posted in Cases & Court Decisions, Communications Decency Act, False Reviews, Internet Defamation General, Ripoff Report
Past victims of false Ripoff Report postings will be pleased with the recent rulings out of the United Stated District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. In a case in which a Utah-based company and individual sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC – the parent company of Ripoff Report – the court denied Xcentric Ventures’… Continue Reading

Washington Case Turns on Application of Federal CDA Immunity

Posted in Cases & Court Decisions, Communications Decency Act, Other Internet Law Issues
Last week, the Washington Supreme Court handed down a favorable ruling in a case turning on the application of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 – favorable, that is, for those seeking to hold websites accountable for certain harm arising out of content published on their sites. In a 6-3 ruling, the top Washington… Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Decision a Reminder of Flawed Communications Decency Act

Posted in Cases & Court Decisions, Communications Decency Act, News, TheDirty.com
On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in the Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment case, in which it reversed the lower court judge’s decision in favor of the former teacher and ex-Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader, Sarah Jones.  At trial, a jury awarded Jones $338,000 in damages before the operator… Continue Reading

The Communications Decency Act and ‘TheDirty’

Posted in Communications Decency Act, Internet Defamation General, News, Other Internet Law Issues, TheDirty.com
We have touched on the Communications Decency Act of 1996 almost in passing in other posts, but that does not do justice to this federal law and its significance to the internet and online speech. In fact, without 47 U.S.C. § 230, this blog (and our practice) would be drastically different. According to § 230(c)(1):… Continue Reading

Defamation and ‘TheDirty’: Why You Don’t Want to Sue TheDirty.com

Posted in Communications Decency Act, Internet Defamation General, TheDirty.com
Nik Richie, founder and editor of controversial “reality” blog TheDirty.com, does not hide what his website is all about. Scroll down to the very bottom of the gossip website and you will find a note that its content is comprised of “rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions, and” – lastly – “factual information.” The website even discloses… Continue Reading

Dispelling Misconceptions About Internet Defamation Removal

Posted in Communications Decency Act, Defamation Removal, Internet Defamation General
Since launching the Vorys internet defamation group, we have encountered several misconceptions about the removal of information from the internet. Companies and professions have been disparaged online — possibly the victims of internet defamation — have several options for dealing with their potential internet crises. Harmful information can be removed from the internet One step… Continue Reading

How to Identify Anonymous Posters on Yelp

Posted in Communications Decency Act, False Reviews, Identify Anonymous Defamers, Yelp
In today’s internet landscape, it is very easy to anonymously post harmful content. However, using a fake screen name or email address does not mean an internet user has completely shielded his or her identity, particularly when that person violates a website’s terms or potentially the law. On the popular review website Yelp, it is no… Continue Reading