Addressing an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled last week that a venue analysis dating to 1967 focusing on the location of dissemination of allegedly defamatory newspapers applied to online defamation suits as well.  As a result, the proper venue for Pennsylvania defamation suits based on website content is any county where a third party who knows the plaintiff personally reads the content and understands it to be harmful to the plaintiff’s reputation. The ruling enlarges the potential venue options for defamation plaintiffs and could lead to website publishers and social media posters being sued in any county in Pennsylvania.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Superior Court holds county where reputational harm occurs is proper venue for Internet defamation suits, confirming 50-year-old inquiry applies to website-based claims

In the recent case of Prince Moulay Hicham v Elaph Publishing Limited, the Court of Appeal held in a unanimous decision that a claimant could include an action under the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’) as an alternative means of redress.

To read our full client alert in relation to this judgment, please

In a case demonstrating the difficulties of applying long-established but arguably outdated legal principles to modern technology, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last week reversed itself to permit a Philadelphia firefighter’s defamation and false light claims to go forward, based on the inclusion of his photograph in an online article describing a sex scandal. The court concluded upon considering the firefighter’s arguments for the second time that, in the context of an online article accompanied by pictures, specifically naming and showing an individual was sufficient to establish that an article was “of or concerning” that individual for purposes of a defamation or false light claim.  However, the Third Circuit affirmed its prior dismissal of the plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding that being implicated in a sex scandal did not rise to the level of being “extreme or outrageous.”

Central to the claims in the case was an article published on the New York Daily News website describing a sex scandal in which “dozens of firefighters were accused of scandalous behavior.”  The text of the article appeared on the right column, while the left column contained two pictures readers could toggle between; one was a silhouette of an unnamed firefighter, while the other was of plaintiff and stated, “Philadelphia firefighter Francis Cheney holds a flag at a 9/11 ceremony in 2006.”  This was the only reference to a specific firefighter in that article and on the following day, the Daily News published an additional article regarding the scandal but did not include the Cheney photograph.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Finds Photo Placement Sufficient to Permit Defamation, False Light Claims to Go Forward in Suit Alleging Harm from Firefighter Sex Scandal Story

There isn’t much that all members of the U.S. Senate can agree on these days, but protecting the ability of consumers to write reviews of businesses has emerged as a uniting issue.

The Senate voted unanimously December 14 to approve the Consumer Review Freedom Act, which outlaws contract provisions that prohibit or restrict individuals’ ability to write reviews of the products or services provided under the contract, such as by imposing fines for such reviews or transferring the copyright in such reviews to the business. The Federal Trade Commission would enforce the Act and is instructed to provide businesses with best practices for compliance. The Act, introduced by Republican Sen. John Thune, passed with an amendment clarifying that website operators may still include contract provisions reserving their right to remove certain content, including content that is unlawful, false, or misleading.
Continue Reading Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015 Wins Support of Every Senator