Blogger sued for trade libel
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
A coastal Maine blogger who criticized the state’s tourism office has been hit with a lawsuit seeking potentially more than $1 million in damages for allegedly making false statements and posting on his website, Maine Web Report, images from proposed tourism advertisements a New York agency prepared for Maine officials.
. . .
The advertising agency is suing Dutson on three counts: copyright infringement, defamation, and trade libel/injurious falsehood. It seeks statutory damages of $150,000 for each of six images it alleges were infringed upon, as well as unspecified punitive damages and legal fees.
This suit has various elements, and it’s hard to say how much of it would go forward in the absence of the (more conventional) copyright claims. This is not purely a trade libel suit based on blog content. But it contains that claim, and as such, it’s a sobering data point. In particular, if these kinds of suits (trade libel over blog content) become a broader trend, that will have serious effects on blogs. After all, a good deal of the blogosphere is dedicated to criticism of some industry or other. There is the classic “I had a bad experience with X airline” post; there are series of posts criticizing a business or industry; and so on.
Trade libel requires (as far as I’m aware, in every jurisdiction – though I’m not an expert) actual falsehood, so that is a potential defense. But even a successful defense can be costly and time-consuming and stressful, and I suspect that few bloggers would want to risk a lawsuit. Thus, the real effect of such lawsuits is the chilling effect — that bloggers will become more hesitant in their criticisms. This may be a good thing in some cases — Heaven knows thablogs often generate more heat than light — but is certainly not an unalloyed good.
In the mean time, let me say that my New York trip has been great. Loved the food. Even the subways smelled nice. Please don’t sue me, Mayor Bloomberg. Or the blog. I was just kidding when I complained about that stale bagel. And I deleted that post, anyway. What post? I didn’t see any post about a stale bagel. Did you, guys? Didn’t think so. Carry on. Nothing to see here.
April 30, 2006 at 10:04 am
Posted in: Blogging, First Amendment, Intellectual Property
Print This Post
Responses (3)
Michael Risch - April 30, 2006 at 11:51 am
Too bad this isn’t in California – this would make for a great anti-SLAPP motion.
Valkor - May 17, 2006 at 3:14 pm
The guy’s blog is named in the story. Go there for a great play-by-play of the whole mess. Fortunately, the whole thing has been dropped because of the embarrassment it caused for the suing parties.
This advertising company pulled out the two biggest, clumsiest hammers in its legal tool box, defamation and copyright infringement, and tried to smash the guy. That’s the problem with those two accusations. They can be thrown around so easily, and no little guy can count on a reasonable judge to dismiss the case or free aid from something like the EFF. The problem with defamation suits will probably have to be fixed with the courts, but the copyright laws can and should be changed to make it obvious that an infringement charge in a situation like this is just ridiculous.
brand propecia - March 22, 2007 at 11:23 pm
brand propecia .
Leave a Reply