New Directions for Young Adults, Inc. v. Davis

Last updated

New Directions for Young Adults, Inc. v. Davis is a 2014 decision of a Florida state circuit court holding that using sock puppet accounts online is tortious interference with business relations, and awarding injunctive relief against it during the pendency of litigation. [1]

Contents

Background

New Directions for Young Adults, Inc. (NDYA) operates in Florida and California to provide psychotherapy, social skills training, vocational training, academic counseling, and training in financial management and life management skills for young adults with developmental or psychological disorders or disabilities, "who have failed to thrive.". [2] Allegedly, Brian and Kathy Davis published derogatory statements on the Internet concerning NDYA's business and reputation, using various different false names. NDYA sued in Florida state court for defamation and tortious interference by creating a group of negative reviews of NDYA under several false identities. [3] Kathy Davis had admitted in pretrial discovery that she used four separate names in her Internet posts—"Cheyanna, Kayla, Kathy D., and William P." One of her posts, written under the name Kathy D., said, "I agree totally with William P’s review" of NDYA. [4]

Circuit court ruling

The circuit court (trial court of general jurisdiction) found that the Davises "created a false impression of a group of negative reviewers about the Plaintiffs when in fact, there is no such group of negative reviewers: only the Defendants." Moreover, the court found that "the act of falsifying multiple identities" is conduct that should be enjoined. It explained that the conduct was wrongful "not because the statements are false or true, but because the conduct of making up names of person who do not exist to post fake comments by fake people to support Defendants' position tortiously interferes with Plaintiffs' business" and such "conduct is inherently unfair." The court therefore ordered the defendants to "remove or cause to be removed all postings creating the false impression that more [than one] person are commenting on the program than actually exist." The court also found, however, that "the comments of Kathy Davis or Brian Davis which do not create a false impression of fake patients or fake employees or fake persons connected to program (those posted under their respective names) are protected by the Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment." [5]

Commentary

One commentator argued that the court was wrong to condemn sock puppetry, as such, by finding "that the act of falsifying multiple identities is the conduct to be enjoined". He insisted that the behavior properly to be proscribed is the tortious interference, not the means to the end. "In other words, the act of creating sock puppets in and of itself cannot be a tortious act and since it is not the tortious act the court can't proscribe it." The court misses the point; "it's not the account creation that caused the defamation, it is the use to which those accounts were put." Accordingly, "the court should not have enjoined the creation of false identities, it should have enjoined the use of those false identities to create a false impression" about NDYA. [6]

Related Research Articles

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.

Remorse Distressing emotion experienced by a person who regrets actions they have done in the past

Remorse is a distressing emotion experienced by an individual who regrets actions which they have done in the past that they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or wrong. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission. People may express remorse through apologies, trying to repair the damage they've caused, or self-imposed punishments.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

Transferred intent is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible under the law, usually the court must demonstrate that the person has criminal intent, that is, that the person knew another would be harmed by his or her actions and wanted this harm to occur. If a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. In Criminal Law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury.

<i>Apple v. Does</i>

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in the USA notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

Sock puppet account Online identity used for purposes of deception


A sock puppet or sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

Puppet Inanimate object or representational figure animated or manipulated by an entertainer

A puppet is an object, often resembling a human, animal or mythical figure, that is animated or manipulated by a person called a puppeteer. The puppeteer uses movements of their hands, arms, or control devices such as rods or strings to move the body, head, limbs, and in some cases the mouth and eyes of the puppet. The puppeteer often speaks in the voice of the character of the puppet, and then synchronizes the movements of the puppet's mouth with this spoken part. The actions, gestures and spoken parts acted out by the puppeteer with the puppet are typically used in storytelling. Puppetry is a very ancient form of theatre which dates back to the 5th century BC in Ancient Greece. There are many different varieties of puppets, and they are made from a wide range of materials, depending on their form and intended use. They range from very simple in construction and operation to very complex.

United States free speech exceptions Categories of free speech not protected by the First Amendment

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.

<i>School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz</i>

School of Visual Arts v. Diane Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d 804 (2003), is a New York Supreme Court case in which it was held that sending and/or directing "large volumes of unsolicited job applications and pornographic e-mails" by defendant to plaintiff if it depletes hard disk space, drains processing power, and negatively impact other system resources of the plaintiff is sufficient to establish "a cause of action for trespass to chattels." The ruling has been followed and cited in a number of cases in different jurisdictions.

<i>Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha</i>

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 640 F.3d 497, was a case in which United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had granted American Buddha's motion to dismiss Penguin Group (USA) Inc. ("Penguin")'s copyright infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i>

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the Alien Tort Claims Act presumptively does not apply extraterritorially.

<i>College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc.</i>

College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc., No. 09-50596 was an unpublished appellate level case in the Fifth Circuit that upheld a district court jury decision to dismiss the purchase of trademarked keywords as infringing. The original suit was brought on a claim of trademark infringement in the purchase of certain advertising keywords that the defendant countered with claims of defamation and tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations. The main issue addressed in the appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the counterclaims of the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, but vacated the award for tortious interference.

<i>Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.</i>

Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328, was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that operator of website, for which server was located in California, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri under "commission of a tortious act" provision of Missouri's long-arm statute, §506.500 RSMo. The case was brought before the court by Marits, Inc. alleging that the Cybergold's use of mark for advertising internet site was a trademark infringement. Cybergold moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court found that the operational nature of the Internet based service provided a connection for Cybergold to be sued in Missouri.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".

Justification and excuse are different defenses in a criminal case. Both defenses admit that the defendant committed an act proscribed by law. The proscribed act has justification if the act had positive effects that outweigh its negative effects, or is not wrong or blameworthy. The proscribed act is excused if the defendant's violation was not entirely voluntary, such as if they acted under duress or under a false belief. Martin v. Ohio (1986) established that states may make justification an affirmative defense, placing the burden of proof on defendant. Patterson v. New York (1977) established that states may make excuses, such as involving mental state, an affirmative defense, rather than part of the mens rea element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Golb is an extensively litigated New York case in which Raphael Golb was convicted for sock puppetry relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls. His conviction was partially reversed on constitutional grounds, but was substantially affirmed.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ New Directions for Young Adults, Inc. v. Davis (17th Jud. Cir. Broward Cty. Sept. 26, 2014) (slip op.).
  2. ↑ Transitional Independent Living; Transitional Independent Living; About New Directions.
  3. ↑ New Directions for Young Adults, slip op.
  4. ↑ Eugene Volokh, Injunction against critical sock puppetry, Volokh Conspiracy Blog (Jan. 10, 2017).
  5. ↑ New Directions for Young Adults, slip op.
  6. ↑ Thinking Outloud, Volokh Conspiracy Blog (Jan. 10, 2017).
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.