Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation

Last updated

The Wikimedia Foundation has been involved in various lawsuits, generally regarding the content of Wikipedia and the actions and anonymity of those who edit it. The Foundation has won some of these and lost others. In the United States, the Wikimedia Foundation typically wins defamation lawsuits brought against it due to protections that web platforms receive from laws like Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. [1] [2] However, in cases in Europe and other countries, courts may rule otherwise. The Wikimedia foundation often ignores these orders, and countries cannot reach across borders to enforce any ruling. India, in particular, is the only country that has forced Wikimedia to remove an entire article from Wikipedia, [3] and the Indian government threatened to block access to the site within its borders in a separate case. [4]

Contents

Other cases have resulted in the Foundation revealing personal information about its editors in response to court orders and removing certain information from Wikipedia articles and their edit histories.

This listing is not meant to be exhaustive and only includes cases that have been covered by sources independent of the litigants.

Outcomes not in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation

In May 2011, Louis Bacon, a hedge fund manager, obtained a court order in Great Britain, where he owned property, against the Wikimedia Foundation, The Denver Post and WordPress.com to compel them to reveal the identity of persons who he claimed had anonymously defamed him on Wikipedia and the other two websites. However, legal experts said that the order was probably unenforceable in the United States. [5] [6] Initially, the Foundation agreed to give the information to Bacon's solicitors, [7] but later asserted that it would only cooperate with a court order in the U.S. It said, "we do not comply with foreign subpoenas absent an immediate threat to life or limb." [5] [ clarification needed ] Automattic, which owns WordPress.com, said Bacon would need a court order but agreed to remove any defamatory material from its websites. [7]

In March 2015, in Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA , the Wikimedia Foundation, along with other groups, sued the National Security Agency over its upstream mass surveillance program. [8] After further rulings in multiple courts, including the District Court and Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and invoked the state secrets privilege, which ruled for the NSA, ending the litigation. [9]

In January 2019, a court in Germany ruled against the Wikimedia Foundation, prompting it to remove part of the history and allegedly defamatory content in the German Wikipedia about professor Alex Waibel. [1] [2] The Wikipedia article's content was ruled defamatory because the link supporting its claims was no longer active, a phenomenon known as link rot. [10] [11]

In 2021, Portuguese businessman Caesar DePaço sued the WMF over an article about him, demanding removal of information he said was defamatory. [12] In September 2023, Portugal's Supreme Court of Justice found in favour of DePaço. [13] The court also ordered information about eight Wikipedia editors to be revealed by the Foundation, including their IP addresses and email addresses. The ruling was reaffirmed in January 2024. [14] The Foundation complied with the order in August 2025.

In 2023, French businessman Laurent de Gourcuff engaged in litigation against the Wikimedia Foundation in order to force them to reveal the IP address of a French Wikipedia editor who added content about Gourcuff that he found defamatory. [15] The WMF refused to hand over information regarding the user, resulting in repeated fines by the court. [15] [16]

In the United Kingdom, the Wikimedia Foundation initiated a legal challenge regarding Wikipedia's categorisation under the Online Safety Act 2023. The law, which was designed to combat trolling, requires sufficiently large websites to collect identifying information about its users' identities or to provide functionality that enable users to block other users. [17] The High Court dismissed the Foundation's challenge. [18]

Outcomes in favor of the Wikimedia Foundation

The Wikimedia Foundation ultimately prevailed in a controversy in Germany over using the full name of a deceased hacker known as Tron. On 14 December 2005, his parents obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the wikipedia.org domain. [19] On 9 February 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned. [20] The plaintiffs appealed to the Berlin state court, but were turned down in May 2006. [21]

John Seigenthaler, an American writer and journalist, contacted Wikipedia in 2005 after his article was edited to incorrectly state that he had been thought for a brief time to be involved in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and of Bobby Kennedy. The content was present in the article for four months. [22] [23] Seigenthaler called Wikipedia a "flawed and irresponsible research tool" and criticized the Communications Decency Act's protection of Wikipedia, which is why the case was dropped. [22] [24]

In 2007, three French nationals sued the Wikimedia Foundation when an article on Wikipedia described them as gay activists. [25] [26] A French court dismissed the defamation and privacy case, ruling that the Foundation was not legally responsible for information in Wikipedia articles. [26] The judge ruled that a 2004 French law limited the Foundation's liability and found that the content had already been removed. [25] [26] He found that the Foundation was not legally required to check the information on Wikipedia, and that "Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature." [26] He did not rule on whether the information was defamatory. [25] [26]

In January 2008, literary agent Barbara Bauer sued the Wikimedia Foundation in New Jersey Superior Court for defamation. [27] [22] [28] She claimed that a Wikipedia entry branded her the "dumbest" literary agent. [22] The case was dismissed because of the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [28]

FBI seal Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg
FBI seal

In July 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding that it cease and desist from using its seal on Wikipedia. [29] The FBI claimed that such practice was illegal and threatened to sue. In reply, Wikimedia counsel Mike Godwin sent a letter to the FBI claiming that Wikipedia was not in the wrong when it displayed the FBI seal on its website. [30] He defended Wikipedia's actions and refused to remove the seal. [31]

In June 2014, the businessman and charity founder (and singer and ex-convict for extortion and conspiracy) Yank Barry filed a defamation lawsuit against four named Wikipedia editors and other anonymous editors ("Does 1–50"), claiming that he had been defamed in Wikipedia articles. [32] [33] He withdrew the suit the following month, while saying the withdrawal was a "strategic maneuver" while his lawyers were at work "preparing a new, more comprehensive complaint against the Wikipedia editors". [34]

In 2016, writer Sorin Cerin sued the administrators of the Romanian Wikipedia in Romanian courts, claiming "patent falsities" after an article about him was deleted with a conclusion that he did not seem notable and that there were signs of self-promotion in the article's history. [35] The trial ended in 2021 with a loss for Cerin. [36] [ non-primary source needed ]

Ongoing litigation

Ruling in Delhi High Court requiring WMF to delete the article in question in the case brought by ANI October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf
Ruling in Delhi High Court requiring WMF to delete the article in question in the case brought by ANI

In July 2024, the Indian news agency Asian News International (ANI) sued for what it deemed defamatory allegations in the English Wikipedia article about the company. The Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had been accused of having served as a "propaganda tool" for the incumbent Indian government. [37] The court has asked that WMF reveal the identities of the editors who conducted the controversial edits, and WMF has agreed to comply. [38] [39] Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation opened in Delhi High Court in August 2024 [40] [41] with WMF being cited for contempt of court in September and ordered back to court in October. [42] On October 21, 2024, the article page regarding the ongoing court case (though not the article about ANI itself) was blanked and access to editing blocked by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the ongoing lawsuit. [3] [43] A number of authors have expressed concern about the case threatening freedom of speech in India. [44] [45] On 28 October, the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the court's request to disclose the identifying information of online users involved in editing the ANI page. [46] An arrangement was reached in the High Court on 11 November to have the foundation serving the summons papers to the involved users as an intermediary while disclosing the email identities of the users under sealed cover to the judge, which would still protect the privacy of the individuals for the time being. [47] [48] On 17 March 2025, a two-judge bench, consisting of A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea filed by WMF against the article takedown order by the Delhi High Court. It took note of the fact that matter involved freedom of media and questioned the High Court on why it was "so touchy" about the subject. [49] The panel questioned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that judges and courts should be more tolerant of criticism; requiring the removal of content because of criticism may not be correct. At the same time, the judge also stated that the order was about press freedom, noting that it was "ironic" that ANI, an organization that relied on press freedom, had effectively censored content on Wikipedia. [50] [51] [52] On 2 April, the Delhi High Court ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content, remove the article's protected status, and "restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency". [53]

In 2024, Taiwanese businessman Tsai Eng-meng brought a civil lawsuit against the Wikimedia Taiwan chapter after editors on the Chinese Wikipedia reverted his edits relating to content that reflected his pro-China stance on the biographical article about himself. Tsai believed that the content injured his reputation and personality rights, and he filed the lawsuit to compel Wikimedia Taiwan to allow him to edit the article. Wikimedia Taiwan rebutted that it does not operate or administer the Chinese Wikipedia, that Tsai's edits were reverted by the Chinese Wikipedia administrators who considered his edits disruptive, and that he was not prevented by Wikimedia Taiwan from editing. The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2024 after the court found that Wikimedia Taiwan had no control over the Chinese Wikipedia and did not prevent Tsai from editing. The case is still on appeal as of 2024. [54] [55]

Cases in which the Wikimedia Foundation was not a direct litigant

In 2008, professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller, who felt that he was defamed on Wikipedia, said that he did not sue Wikipedia because he was told that his suit would not prevail because of Section 230. [56] He sued the Miami firm from whose computers the edits were made, but later dropped the case. [57]

In 2024, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that it had successfully resolved several international defamation lawsuits, citing improvements to its legal defense fund and support from pro bono law firms. [58] [ dead link ][ citation needed ]

References

  1. 1 2 Deep, Aroon (September 10, 2024). "On ANI's defamation suit against Wikipedia | Explained". The Hindu . ISSN   0971-751X. Archived from the original on October 5, 2024. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
  2. 1 2 Hunt, Pete (September 23, 2024). "Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?". The Diplomat . Archived from the original on September 22, 2024. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
  3. 1 2 Deep, Aroon (October 21, 2024). "Wikipedia suspends page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation". The Hindu . Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved October 21, 2024.
  4. ↑ "Govt orders Wikipedia to remove link showing incorrect map of India, says sources". The Hindu . December 3, 2020. ISSN   0971-751X. Archived from the original on February 20, 2025. Retrieved October 12, 2024.
  5. 1 2 "US billionaire wins high court order over Wikipedia 'defamation'". The Guardian. May 9, 2011. Archived from the original on December 2, 2016. Retrieved December 15, 2016.
  6. ↑ "U.S. Law Protects Anonymous Speech, Not Billionaires". Forbes . May 10, 2011. Archived from the original on July 30, 2017. Retrieved September 4, 2017.
  7. 1 2 "Hedge fund boss wins Wikipedia case". Daily Telegraph. London, England. May 10, 2011.
  8. ↑ Ingram, David (March 10, 2015). "NSA sued by Wikimedia, rights groups over mass surveillance". Reuters. Archived from the original on September 30, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.
  9. ↑ Chung, Andrew (February 21, 2023). "U.S. Supreme Court snubs Wikipedia bid to challenge NSA surveillance". Reuters . Archived from the original on March 31, 2023. Retrieved February 22, 2023.
  10. ↑ Rogers, Jacob; Davenport, Allison (April 11, 2019). "A German court forced us to remove part of a Wikipedia article's 'history.' Here's what that means". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on April 14, 2019. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
  11. ↑ "Raue LLP successful against Wikipedia". Raue. October 31, 2018. Archived from the original on August 28, 2024. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  12. ↑ "Nota pública de esclarecimento de César do Paço" [Public note of clarification from Caesar DePaço]. ionline (in Portuguese). April 15, 2021. Archived from the original on April 26, 2021. Retrieved July 27, 2023.
  13. ↑ "Supremo Tribunal obriga 'Wikipédia' a remover referências a César do Paço" [Supreme Court forces Wikipedia to remove references to Caesar DePaço]. Correio da Manhã (in European Portuguese). December 2023. Archived from the original on December 4, 2023. Retrieved December 5, 2023.
  14. ↑ "Wikipédia volta a perder contra César do Paço" [Wikipedia loses against Caesar DePaço again]. Sábado (in European Portuguese). Archived from the original on January 29, 2024. Retrieved January 29, 2024.
  15. 1 2 "Wikimedia Foundation condamnée à communiquer des données d'identification" [Wikimedia Foundation ordered to disclose identifying data]. Legalis (in French). January 6, 2023. Archived from the original on September 23, 2024. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  16. ↑ De Roquefeuil, Me Pierre (January 6, 2023). "Blog: La fin des farceurs sur Wikipedia ?" [Blog: The end of pranksters on Wikipedia?]. Avocat.fr (in French). Archived from the original on January 6, 2023. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  17. ↑ Milmo, Dan (May 8, 2025). "Wikipedia challenging UK law it says exposes it to 'manipulation and vandalism'". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved May 12, 2025.
  18. ↑ "Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules". August 11, 2025.
  19. ↑ Schröder, Burkhard (January 10, 2006). "Hacker leben nicht gefährlich" [Hackers don't live dangerously]. Telepolis (in German).
  20. ↑ Kleinz, Torsten; Smith, Robert W. (February 9, 2006). "Court overturns temporary restraining order against Wikimedia Deutschland". Heise Online. Archived from the original on February 8, 2007.
  21. ↑ Ihlenfeld, Jens (May 12, 2006). "Urteil: Wikipedia darf Tron weiter beim Namen nennen" [Judgment: Wikipedia allowed to name Tron by name again]. Golem.de (in German). Archived from the original on December 31, 2023. Retrieved October 10, 2024.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Beaumont, Claudine (May 11, 2008). "Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit". Telegraph. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  23. ↑ Ramasastry, Anita (December 12, 2005). "Is an Online Encyclopedia, Such as Wikipedia, Immune From Libel Suits?". FindLaw. Archived from the original on January 27, 2013. Retrieved November 30, 2024.
  24. ↑ Dormehl, Luke (July 8, 2020). "If Section 230 Gets Killed, Wikipedia Will Die Along With It". Digital Trends. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
  25. 1 2 3 "Wikipedia cleared of defamation". The Inquirer. November 2, 2007. Archived from the original on October 24, 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  26. 1 2 3 4 5 "Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case". Reuters. November 2, 2007. Archived from the original on December 21, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  27. ↑ "Wikipedia goes to court to defend defamation immunity". The Register. May 7, 2008. Archived from the original on August 1, 2013. Retrieved April 15, 2013.
  28. 1 2 "Bauer v. Wikimedia". Citizen Media Law Project. May 2, 2008. Archived from the original on July 13, 2010. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
  29. ↑ "Letter from FBI to Wikimedia" (PDF). July 22, 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 18, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  30. ↑ "Letter from Wikimedia to FBI" (PDF). July 30, 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 18, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2012– via The New York Times.
  31. ↑ Schwartz, John (August 2, 2010). "F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law" . The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 6, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2012.
  32. ↑ Simcoe, Luke (June 25, 2014). "Canadian businessman sues Wikipedia editors for defamation". Metronews . Archived from the original on June 27, 2014. Retrieved February 12, 2020.
  33. ↑ Alfonso, Fernando III (June 24, 2014). "Wikipedia editors hit with $10 million defamation lawsuit". The Daily Dot . Archived from the original on June 25, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2019. Updated 11 December 2015.
  34. ↑ "Philanthropist Yank Barry prepares to bolster lawsuit against Wikipedia editors, strategically withdraws first complaint" (Press release). July 17, 2014. Archived from the original on July 27, 2014. Retrieved August 2, 2014– via PRNews Channel.
  35. ↑ "Wikipedia România, în mijlocul unui proces". Digi24 (in Romanian). September 15, 2016. Archived from the original on February 8, 2022. Retrieved February 8, 2022.
  36. ↑ "Detalii dosar 6954/2/2018" (in Romanian). Romania: High Court of Cassation and Justice. Archived from the original on February 7, 2022. Retrieved February 8, 2022.
  37. ↑ "Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia?". The Indian Express. July 10, 2024. Archived from the original on September 6, 2024. Retrieved December 18, 2024.
  38. ↑ "Wikipedia embroiled in legal battle in India". Voice of America. November 3, 2024. Archived from the original on November 10, 2024. Retrieved December 18, 2024.
  39. ↑ Srivastava, Bhavini (November 14, 2024). "Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users in ANI's defamation suit". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved December 18, 2024.
  40. ↑ Deep, Aroon (July 12, 2024). "Content determined by volunteer editors, says Wikipedia parent". The Hindu . Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
  41. ↑ Hunt, Pete (September 23, 2024). "Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia?". The Diplomat . Archived from the original on September 22, 2024. Retrieved September 22, 2024.
  42. ↑ "Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order". The Hindu . September 5, 2024. ISSN   0971-751X. Archived from the original on September 14, 2024. Retrieved October 10, 2024.
  43. ↑ "ANI v Wikimedia Foundation" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki.
  44. ↑ Bhalla, Vineet (October 19, 2024). "Why Delhi HC is angry with Wikipedia for calling ANI a 'government propaganda tool'". Scroll.in . Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  45. ↑ "Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information". The Indian Express . September 17, 2024. Archived from the original on September 19, 2024. Retrieved October 27, 2024.
  46. ↑ Rahman, Shaikh Azizur (November 3, 2024). "Wikipedia embroiled in legal battle in India". Voice of America . Archived from the original on November 10, 2024. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
  47. ↑ Srivastava, Bhavini (November 11, 2024). "Delhi High Court allows Wikipedia to serve summons on users in ANI's defamation suit". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
  48. ↑ Srivastava, Bhavini (November 14, 2024). "Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users in ANI's defamation suit". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved November 19, 2024.
  49. ↑ Jamal, Ummar (March 17, 2025). "Courts have to be tolerant: Supreme Court on Delhi HC's takedown order against Wikipedia in ANI case". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved March 17, 2025.
  50. ↑ Staff, T. N. M. (March 18, 2025). "SC slams Delhi HC order directing Wikipedia to remove ANI defamation case page". The News Minute. Archived from the original on April 15, 2025. Retrieved April 10, 2025.
  51. ↑ "Supreme Court questions legality of Delhi HC's order directing removal of Wikipedia page on ANI defamation suit". The New Indian Express. March 17, 2025. Retrieved April 10, 2025.
  52. ↑ Sharma, Aditya (March 19, 2025). "ANI vs. Wikipedia Legal Battle Explained". thephilox.com. Retrieved April 10, 2025.
  53. ↑ Thapliyal, Nupur (April 2, 2025). "Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Allegedly Defamatory Description Of ANI On Its Wikipedia Page". Live Law . Retrieved April 2, 2025.
  54. ↑ "蔡衍明不爽被指「親中」 狀告維基百科協會吞敗". Liberty Times (in Chinese (Taiwan)). September 3, 2024. Archived from the original on September 3, 2024. Retrieved September 4, 2024.
  55. ↑ 聯合新聞網 (September 3, 2024). "維基百科寫他「向中國共產黨示好」 蔡衍明提告協會結果曝光". United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on September 3, 2024. Retrieved September 4, 2024.
  56. ↑ Beaumont, Claudine (May 11, 2008). "Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved September 6, 2012.
  57. ↑ "Zoeller v. Josef Silny & Associates". Digital Media Law Project. Archived from the original on December 26, 2017. Retrieved December 26, 2017.
  58. ↑ "Wikimedia Foundation resolves multiple international defamation cases". Wikimedia Foundation. June 18, 2024. Retrieved October 26, 2025.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.