Stanford CIS

elf-Published Authors' Effort to Squelch Criticism on Amazon.com Dismissed

By Stanford Center for Internet and Society on

Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Hammer brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against defendant Amazon.com (“Amazon”).  Non-party Anthony Trendl (“Trendl”) posted negative reviews of plaintiff’s books on Amazon’s website, Amazon.com, and plaintiff wanted them removed from Amazon’s website.  After Trendl was sued by plaintiff, Amazon.com provided Trendl with counsel.  Moreover, after numerous complaints from plaintiff about Trendl’s reviews, Amazon removed plaintiff’s books from its website under the terms of the contract with plaintiff.  After these actions, plaintiff sued Amazon, alleging myriad of claims, from defamation to conversion. The Court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and enjoined plaintiff from initiating any future actions in federal court regarding reviews of his books posted on Amazon or Amazon’s refusal to do business with him.Among notable claims were those for defamation, and violation of copyright law and the first amendment.  The defamation claims were dismissed because they were predicated only on opinion. The court reasoned that the “average person understands that such reviews are the reviewer’s interpretation and not ‘objectively verifiable’ false statements of fact.”  Additionally, the copyright claims were dismissed because there was no allegation that anyone copied plaintiff’s work.  The Court noted that Amazon’s use of the cover art of plaintiff’s books was authorized in the contract to sell the books.  Moreover, the first amendment claims were dismissed because the first amendment does not regulate the conduct of private parties; absent a “state actor,” there was no first amendment violation.

Plaintiff also alleged breach of contract and discriminatory business practices.  The breach of contract claims were dismissed because Amazon had the right to terminate the contract, with or without cause, by giving written notice.  Indeed, the Court noted that Amazon gave more notice to the plaintiff than was required in the contract.  The discriminatory business practice claims were dismissed because, in sum, Amazon did not attempt to preclude plaintiff from entering the market, and has the right to choose with whom it does business.  The Court dismissed the remaining claim of conversion.

Among other holdings, the Court explained that because of the plaintiff’s “vexatious conduct,” plaintiff was enjoined from bringing any more federal actions relating to reviews of his books on Amazon.com or Amazon.com’s refusal to do business with him.  However, the Court did not find the plaintiff’s conduct so litigious as to require him to append a copy of the injunction to further complaints.

Published in: Blog , Vol. 3, No. 2 , Packets