When Suing A Website For Libel, It Helps To Actually Sue The Right One

from the thedirt-vs.-thedirty dept

Wed, Sep 1st 2010 9:55am — Mike Masnick

Last week, a story caught my eye, about a website being ordered to pay $11 million for failing to respond to a lawsuit claiming libel. The story caught my attention for a few reasons: first, I'm always interested in libel lawsuits involving blogs and second... the name of the site that was sued was TheDirt.com, which... er... seemed close enough to Techdirt.com that I had to pause for a second and make sure it wasn't us. Anyway, after all that, it didn't seem like the ruling was interesting enough for a post... until some other details came out.

The lawsuit itself came from a Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader/high school English teacher named Sarah Jones, who was upset that the site in question apparently posted a picture of her and reported that she had an affair with a player and had contracted two venereal diseases. Assuming there's no truth to the rumors, it sounded like a straightforward libel case -- though from all the reporting, it's not clear if the site owners themselves wrote the content, or if it was written by a user -- in which case the site might have Section 230 protections (potentially depending on how involved they were in encouraging such content).

So why is the case suddenly interesting? Well, perhaps because it now appears that Ms. Jones' lawyers sued the wrong company. Oops. The lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles-based Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, which runs the website TheDirt.com. Problem is that the site that contained the content in question was TheDirty.com, and that's run by a Scottsdale-based company called Dirty World LLC who had no indication that there was a lawsuit going on at all. Oops indeed. At least no one sued us.

Amusingly, the folks at TheDirt.com are amusingly asking if they should sue for libel right back, considering all the press coverage claiming (falsely) that they had libeled Ms. Jones. Oh, and as for TheDirty.com, it's also asking the AP for an apology for falsely reporting that it had lost the lawsuit when it hadn't even been served. Quite a dirty mess. Separately, I have to imagine that Jones' lawyer, Eric Deters, now regrets his statement to the AP:

"If they would have just taken it down, this all would have been over," Deters said. "They just kind of mocked the whole court system."

Might have helped if you sued the right company.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: defamation, libel, mistakes, sarah jones, thedirt.com, thedirty.com

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:06am

Wow, um, an image search for Sarah Jones does not bode well for her future reputation, at least with safesearch turned off. Not that I'm implying Sarah jones prefers full nudity with her students and posting the pictures online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:15am

The AP got something completely wrong? Shocking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A., 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:22am

Re:
Yeah, dummy, it's the AP's fault. We can all see that reading comprehension is your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:40am

Re: Cheap Cars
I don't like your cheap cars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:41am

Money back guarantee?
I hope she got a money back guarantee from the lawyer. I would sure hate to pay for a lawsuit against the wrong person/company and then have to pay for another lawsuit against the right person/company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:44am

Re: Re:
Perhaps you missed the paragraph near the end of the post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:45am

Re: Re:
Yeah. How silly. I'm sure the AP confirmed that Eric Deter did, in fact, say what he said and..

*poof* Real Journalism written by Real Journalists, with all the rights and immunities assigned thereto.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:53am

well
In Soviet Russia, court system mocks YOU!

Sorry, sorry, I couldn't help myself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Trails, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:56am

Re: Cheap Cars
I like your total overpriced ripoff and enjoy messing up your google index too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GrinningFool, 1 Sep 2010 @ 10:57am

Ahhh, its always good when these types of lawsuits get messed up. Too bad it will not make a lick of difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron (profile), 1 Sep 2010 @ 11:22am

Why
... didn't the sued company just send in a note to the court saying they were the wrong group? I mean, the sued company actually got served, didn't it? Would have solved everything early on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2010 @ 11:32am

I wonder which came first, the Dirty World that runs thedirt.com or the Dirty World that runs thedirty.com. This sounds like pretty good evidence of a likelihood of confusion. I smell a trademark suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 1 Sep 2010 @ 12:52pm

Re:
Those lawyers were certainly morons in a hurry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SuperSparky, 1 Sep 2010 @ 2:03pm

Re: Why
The post seemed to indicate that they weren't even served. The article does not indicate who was served but only who wasn't served the required summons.

The problem here is one company was Los Angeles, California based and the other was Scottsdale, Arizona based. It's a matter of jurisdiction as well.

Not only is her attorney an idiot, but he placed himself vulnerable to a malpractice suit by her. This attorney broke the first rule of being a jurist, always double-check your paperwork, as there is no such thing as a typo under the law. One typo can ruin a case.

As to the Associated Press' incompetence. This isn't the first time the AP has not checked its facts (or lack thereof) before reporting a story. A simple followup would have prevented their story from ever being published as it was, but it would not have made for good tabloid press; you know instead of that yucky "journalistic integrity" thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2010 @ 3:17pm

Insults
From the Politico piece linked above:
The next day, Bertelsman ruled against Dirty World Entertainment Recordings. Kentucky attorney Eric Deters, who is representing Jones, said it was irrelevant that the incorrect corporation, website and physical address were listed on the complaint and judgment.

"We’re still going to serve that S.O.B. personally," Deters said of Richie. "I’m going to make that dirty, rotten, mean, vermin bastard pay. He’s a piece of dirt."

So, a dirty, rotten, mean, vermin bastard piece of dirt SOB? I guess when you screw the pooch as badly as this lawyer did, hurling insults at the other guy is a good way to draw attention away from your royal fuckup.

Also:
“He ought to be ashamed of himself,” Deters said “He’s another lying little weasel politician. That’s not slander; that is my opinion.”
0
Boy. It takes a lawyer to know how to [kind of] slander somebody without actually being guilty of slander.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grr, 2 Sep 2010 @ 7:10am

Eric Deters
Eric Deters is a !@#$@#$ and goes by the name "The Bull Dog" on a radio spot show in Cincy. Not really surprised by this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skanky, 2 Sep 2010 @ 7:16am

Wow
She is using the wrong lawyer and SHE is now LIBEL for damages. What a CUN*. LOL No doubt she is the person who is at fault. I hope she has no children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Annon, 2 Sep 2010 @ 7:52am

Why was any money awarded at all? I mean, don't judges know about Section 230? A nasty comment on a post and the site is being sued for libel? I thought that should be thrown out right off?

Also, $11 mil b/c someone said something mean about you online? That's outrageous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phil, 2 Sep 2010 @ 9:01am

Some of those later URLs are websensed... For SEX!
You should mention that the comment you link to is on a sex site, and NSFW... I stupidly clicked it to see the guy's statement, and Websense blocked it as a sex site. I almost had a heart attack! It's a good thing my network admin has a sense of humor!

Boy, howdy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
markus, 2 Sep 2010 @ 9:56am

Re:
Haha....

You're just as bad as the lawyer. That's not the same Sarah Jones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thedirt, 2 Sep 2010 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: Why
not really.. they ddint even sue the owners of thedirt.com we are a nevada corp lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:12pm

"They just kind of mocked the whole court system."

why yes, yes they did
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:14pm

Re: Money back guarantee?
XD even when the lawyer does something supid.... they get payed more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2010 @ 4:15pm

Re: Wow
yeah or else they would sue for libel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hahaha, 2 Sep 2010 @ 6:49pm

Hahaha
Hahaha!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
God, 3 Sep 2010 @ 6:04am

Typical Court Favoritism in Femerica
Another golddigging American woman. Men should be able to sue for slander and libel too knowing the crap women spew about them. Typical Femerica brainwashees. No surprise considering the courts are the fanbase which supports your typical Femerica goldigging feminazis. The sad part is that all those statements are true about her
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 3 Sep 2010 @ 9:24am

Re: Typical Court Favoritism in Femerica
Misogynistic much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Abel Tasman, 4 Sep 2010 @ 5:52pm

Spare a thought for the judge. What a d?ckhead.
Imagine how this is going to unwound without the law admitting to itself that it was an ASS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan.C.Hale, 19 Sep 2010 @ 3:45am

Hooman Karamian may have ownership in THEDIRT.COM, so ATTY Deters may not have been far off the mark.

THEDIRT.COM has been registered since 2002, protected by GoDaddy’s “Domain by Proxy” service that hides true owner information. This is the same service Hooman Karamian utilizes in his solutions. An IT records check (with registrar GoDaddy or hosting provider MOJO) would ultimately provide evidence or possibly link ownership of the domains.

Reference:
Address lookup
canonical name thedirt.com.
addresses 99.192.184.230

Domain Whois record
Domain Name: THEDIRT.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 29-may-2010
Creation Date: 09-apr-2002
Expiration Date: 09-apr-2011

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

CustName: Mojohost
Address: 31800 Northwestern Hwy
Address: Suite304
City: Farmington Hills
StateProv: MI
PostalCode: 48334
Country: US

V/r

Nate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
webmaster, 21 Nov 2010 @ 12:05am

I own thedirt.com and we are in nevada.. I went private because I didnt want the phone calls from the ap etc.. it was odd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Northbay Web Marketing, 1 Jan 2011 @ 8:01pm

leveling the playing field
Sounds like the Attorney is going to pay on this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nitin mahendru, 8 Jan 2011 @ 3:13am

How to sue a website
Hello,

I don't know how to ask but the issue is I have visiting a website where I found some guy selling the T-shirts with the pics of our goddess. The pictures were vulgar and kind of porn views. I don't knoe how to SUE this GUY PLEASE HELP.

I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA BUT I'LL DEFINITELY STOP THIS VIOLATION.

IF SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS PLEASE HELPPPPPPPP....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Jan 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: How to sue a website
Hire a lawyer if you're determined. Or better yet, just move on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cheap bags garden, 7 Apr 2011 @ 11:33pm

comment
good text! thanks for sharing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marc Ricther, 20 Oct 2011 @ 9:56am

Web Privacy Buys You Nothing
One of the biggest scams from web hosting companies is their privacy protection services. If you pay for the service you really aren't gaining any real protection. At the first sign of trouble they are willing to give up your personal information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]