The Internet is a major source for information these days, especially about businesses with which individuals have never worked. Plastic surgeons, psychologists, medical doctors, and lawyers are just a couple of the professionals whose livelihoods depend upon positive results popping up when people plug their names or practices into Google. This case, involving lawyers and an ex-Paralegal, is a pretty interesting one.

The Bellaire law firm Weston & Associates and name partner Michael Weston are seeking $1.25 million for the review posted at Citysearch.com, Texas Lawyer reports. The defendants are the one-time paralegal, Amber Williams, and her husband, Jon, both Houston residents.

The suit claims Amber Williams was fired for insubordination in November 2010 after less than a month on the job, according to the Texas Lawyer story.

Citysearch.com already removed the review, but Weston & Associates is apparently still seeking the massive amounts of damages. This is a legitimate case, don’t let the oddness of it scare you away. It will be an interesting one to watch develop, it could have major repercussions for reputation management efforts–anyone who gets updates on the case, leave news in the comments section.

Online defamation is a charge that is being taken more seriously by many courts. Some would say that we are lucky that the courts are deciding the issue, rather than congress, since the courts seem to be making good decisions at the moment and the last time congress made a good decision…well…it’s just better if the courts handle it, that’s the point. A former CEO in Indianapolis is suing a local news channel’s website in order to ascertain the identity of his anonymous detractors–and the court ruled in his favor.

The defamation suit filed by Jeffrey Miller, former chief executive of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, targets online statements that allege, among other things, that he “most likely” committed a criminal act and is “the most greedy man I’ve ever known,” the Indianapolis Star reports in a separate story.

It is tough enough, as is, to maintain a decent online reputation without having to worry about people intentionally scarring your reputation anonymously.

Online defamation lawsuits often involve random people accusing each other of the worst sort of acts, usually on some random blog. So often we fail to see the true consequences of online defamation lawsuits.

This Courtney Love lawsuit has made a lot of waves recently, that’s for sure. It’s guaranteed to make a few more before everything is said and done. Although a settlement is likely, it has attracted quite a lot of attention to the problem of online defamation and the lack of legal solutions.

“In some respects, it’s social media on trial,” said Bryan Freedman of Freedman & Taitelman in Los Angeles, who represents Simorangkir. “As more and more people defame people using the Internet as a tool and using social media as the forum, there’s a question of how much you believe what you read.”

The trial would’ve been an interesting spectacle, especially since big personalities like Courtney Love would’ve been involved. But ultimately, this is not the type of trial you want determining the future of jurisprudence regarding online defamation.

PC World is always posting interesting pieces for those of us in the reputation management services industry. The latest contribution to that tradition is an article attempting to answer a question about online defamation on social networking sites.

In Australia, if you have a social networking account such as Facebook or Twitter, or if you use Internet message boards or forums, you are bound by this country’s laws when you post material or express yourself. This issue has become readily apparent with the recent ‘#twitdef’ case, which saw an Australian journalist threatened with a defamation lawsuit over her posts on Twitter.

The most important thing to remember, by far, is that your countries particular laws and what bind you. There is no international law concerning how online defamation is to be handled or prosecuted. The article further states that posting videos of illegal activity on social networks can also get you into trouble.

This is probably one of the most interesting online defamation suits I have seen in recent weeks–a plastic surgeon suing former patients of his. The three defendents in the suit are all women and former patients of the good doctor’s. He claims that they left anonymous comments on a review site in which they unfairly maligned him or his work.

He has launched a lawsuit again Elaina Bender, Lisa Cuevas, and another unnamed woman for $100,000 each for allegedly calling him ‘dangerous,’ ‘ruthless’ and a ‘liar’ in their postings.

The three women wrote their comments anonymously on Yelp and Citysearch, two online review websites, but their identities were revealed when Dr Pensler’s lawyers subpoenaed the companies for the information.

I would not guess as to whether Dr. Pensler will win or lose his lawsuit, but I certainly sympathize with his situation. The anonymous postings have undoubtedly caused him to lose many clients that he might otherwise have gotten.

Phyllis Morris is the former Mayor of Aurora, she was ousted by a political newcomer, Geoff Dawe, in an election just last month. She lost by less than 4,000 votes–and she thinks the loss is attributable to three bloggers. Morris has named several residents, bloggers and commenters, in a lawsuit for online defamation–she is seeking $6 million in damages. The courts in Canada will now get to struggle with the question of whether this is free speech, defamatory speech, etc.

The case pits the rights of bloggers to freely opine against the rights of politicians to defend their reputations against online attacks, and raises the question of what constitutes fair comment in the increasingly unwieldy Internet realm, where a solitary comment may be read by millions of people worldwide.

Even the experts are unclear on where the line is between defamatory comments and free speech against political opponents. Apparently the former Mayor think that the online turmoil these bloggers and their comments caused was the sole reason for her electoral loss.

One does not usually think of bubbles as being in any way intrusive or assaulting, but Toronto Police Constable Adam Josephs found them to be sufficient cause to arrest a young protester back during the G20 Summit. He came to be dubbed “Officer Bubbles”, a moniker which he apparently does not appreciate very much–he filed an online defamation suit against YouTube based upon a cartoon that was posted in response to this video.

But the lawsuit was not filed in response to the original video, but rather to a cartoon that was later uploaded in which a policeman wearing a name badge “A. Josephs” is shown arresting Santa Claus and U.S. President Barack Obama among others, and punching a photographer in the face.

The anonymity guaranteed to online commenters can be abused, and this is proof of that, regardless of what one thinks about the particular police officer or cartoon involved. Despite people’s ignorance on the issue, defamation laws do indeed apply to the digital world. While the officer is unlikely to win his lawsuit, this nonetheless proves how online defamation can effect a person’s world and reputation.

An appellate court has ruled on an online defamation suit in New Jersey and, in an odd twist, has basically stated that there need be no proof of damages for the suit to proceed. Basically, the court ruled in the case that damages can be proven later in the online defamation suit–a step that most experts say does not follow the pattern of law in other cases.

The case is W.J.A. v. D.A. (A-0762-09), and it concerns an uncle, W.J.A., who claims to have been wrongly accused of molesting his nephew, D.A., in online postings. W.J.A. claims to have been defamed and is seeking damages–but he has not yet been able to prove what damages he suffered. Despite that, the judge has allowed the case to move on.

This could have a major bearing on google reputation management, as it could make litigation much easier than the traditional way of fixing these problems, online reputation management.

The Pitssburg Post Gazette has some interesting news this morning about a lawsuit many online reputation management professionals have been following very closely.

A judge in Pittsburg decided that anonymous online commenters do not have the right to remain so. His ruling was viewed as a strike against anonymous online defamation by his supporters and as a blow against free speech to his opponents.

Anonymous bloggers beware. You may not be as anonymous as you think.

Forward Township Supervisor Thomas DeRosa has won a court victory in the action that he filed in November to uncover the identities of people who posted comments on an online bulletin board that he said defamed him.

On Wednesday, the ACLU, which had intervened in the case, turned over the Internet Protocol addresses of six individuals who made specific posts that Mr. DeRosa mentioned in his court filings.

That action follows an announcement Tuesday night by West Mifflin Area school director Albert Graham, who vowed to take legal action to obtain the names of individuals who he said had posted threats against his life on the West Mifflin page of the discussion board Topix.com.

Web service providers have protection from comments made by third-party posters under a federal 1996 telecommunications law. But some courts require them to release the names of posters’ identities if a strong enough case is made for defamation.

This is certainly not the first case that has been decided this way–so it is not revolutionary, but is indicative of an overall narrative of judicial rulings that have moved in this direction.

Is it smarter for a company to sue anonymous online critics, ignore them, or confront the problem head on by replying to the criticism? This is debate that has raged in online reputation management, online defamation, and business circles for years. There is no definitive answer. This article gives a pretty good view on the question, though.

When an anonymous critic attacks a company’s reputation online, the initial reaction is often to launch an expensive legal offensive to quiet the damaging criticism. However, before jumping headfirst into a costly and potentially risky litigation strategy, companies should consider whether they are using the court system to vindicate their protected legal rights or whether they are turning to litigation in an attempt to stifle unfair, albeit protected, criticism.

A lesson can be learned from a recent case involving USA Technologies, a NASDAQ-listed company that supplies products for devices such as vending machines and photocopiers. The company is in a tough spot, with its stock price having plunged more than 99% during the past decade. Despite this poor performance, the board of directors has continued to compensate company management handsomely.

As a result, the blogosphere has not been kind to USAT. One commentator, writing under the pseudonym “Stokklerk” on the Yahoo! Finance message board, accused USAT’s CEO of having a “worldview” where “humanity exist[ed] to be fleeced,” and stated that USAT had committed “legalized highway robbery” and was operating its business as a “soft Ponzi” scheme. Stokklerk further posted that “two top people at USAT” had “skimmed over $30M” from USAT by promoting a “story to lure investors and then” have the management approve “massive pay packages” that bore no correlation to company performance.

The entire article is worth reading. It gives a very good perspective on the issue without being too biased. This problem is neither easily explained nor solved. It is good to see someone looking into it.