Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Longhorn Packaging prevailed in a suit initiated in 1999 against Computize for the breach of contract both entered into in order to renew and upgrade Longhorn’s computing system and accounting software. Having agreed to provide Longhorn with a computer solution to its slow functioning system and Y2K compliance concerns, Computize recommended that the necessary P.C.s and accounting software be bought from third parties, and that it would set up and install the system. However the P.C.s were largely defective, breaking down constantly, crashing and even burning up and shocking users; the third party accounting software proved useless, and support by Computize insufficient, reaching the point where it would no longer take Longhorn’s calls. forthcoming Y2K compliance pressures forced Longhorn to return to its former software provider and to seek an independent consultant to assess the situation and recommend a remedy, which ultimately amounted to the complete substitution of the system provided by Computize.

In July 2002, National Technical Systems, Inc. (NTS) and its president Jack Lin (“respondents”) sued former NTS vice-president Brett Schoneman (“appellant”) for defamation, alleging that Schoneman made posts on the Yahoo!Finance message board containing false and defamatory statements about the respondents’ management practices and behavior. Schoneman brought a special motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuits against public participation, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 425.16).The anti-SLAPP statute is aimed at curbing “lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (§425.16, subd. (a).) Protected speech includes statements made in “a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” (§425.16, subd. (e)(3).) In order to succeed in its motion, the defendant must make a threshold showing that the lawsuit arises from a protected First Amendment activity; then, the court examines whether there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. An order granting or denying a motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute is appealable.

In June 2003, former priest James Beine, also known as Mar James, was sentenced by a federal district court to nearly 57 months in prison for possessing child pornography and a $10,000 fine. On December 23, 2003, the Eighth Circuit overturned Beine’s federal conviction and granted his suppression motion on grounds that the state police detectives violated his fourth amendment rights by a warrantless search and seizure of CDs he had left in the possession of bailee, Michael Laschobar. Because Beine did not file timely objections, his case was reviewed on a plain error standard. This reversal does not affect Beine’s 12-year state prison sentence imposed in September for exposing himself to three boys while working as a St. Louis public elementary school counselor.The discovery of the CDs containing child pornography came about while Beine was in jail on state charges of sexual misconduct. Beine had asked another prisoner to send a letter asking Laschobar, who was storing the CDs for Beine, to destroy the CDs containing the images of child pornography, but the letter was turned over to authorities who seized the discs from the Laschobar’s home. Beine was subsequently indicted on a federal count of possessing child pornography.

This case arose after an Ebay user (who was not a party in this suit) left negative feedback directed at the plaintiff, Robert M. Grace, on the Ebay website. Grace contended that the feedback, which claimed that he was “dishonest all the way!!!!” and “should be banned from ebay!!!!,” was defamatory. After Ebay refused to take down the negative feedback, Grace sued Ebay for defamation, claiming the auction site had published the defamatory feedback either knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Grace also charged Ebay with breach of contact (the Ebay user agreement) and with unfair business practices.Ebay moved for demurrer arguing (1) that it was protected against liability under the safe harbor of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. §230, and (2) that the user agreement entered into by Grace barred his claim. The trial court sustained demurrer, and Grace appealed.