Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Last updated
Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 12, 2010
Citation(s)611 F.3d 653, 38 Media L. Rep. 2057,No. 09-71265
Case history
Prior action(s)Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Management Team, LLC
Appealed from United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Subsequent action(s)Opinion withdrawn and replaced by opinion issued January 7, 2011.
Case opinions
Cahill standard is too stringent and should not be applied to First Amendment claims of anonymous online speakers involving commercial speech.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Sidney Runyan Thomas M. Margaret McKeown Jay Bybee
Case opinions
Decision by M. Margaret McKeown
Keywords
First Amendment, anonymous speech

Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada (In re Anonymous Online Speakers), 611 F.3d 653 (2010), [1] is a decision by the Ninth Circuit lowering the standard a plaintiff must meet to compel identification of anonymous posters on the Internet. [2]

Contents

Quixtar, Inc. sued its competitor Signature Management TEAM, LLC for tortious interference with existing contracts. Quixtar claimed that TEAM created an Internet smear campaign involving anonymous postings of content that discredited Quixtar and its business practices. The district court ordered TEAM to identify three of the five anonymous authors who posted content about Quixtar. The Anonymous Online Speakers petitioned to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court's order. Quixtar cross petitioned to the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus which, if granted, would force TEAM to identify the remaining speakers. Since neither Quixtar nor TEAM demonstrated "an entitlement to the extraordinary relief" that would be granted by the writ, both parties were denied their requested petitions.

The Ninth Circuit recognized that First Amendment protection applied to online speech. The Ninth Circuit decided that the nature of the speech should determine the standard used to protect online speakers and their speech. Historically, courts have awarded greater protection for political speech than commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit classified the Internet postings and video content as commercial speech because they went to "the heart of Quixtar's commercial practices and its business operations." [1]

The district court, in this case, used the Cahill standard which required that parties "submit sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for each essential element of the defamation claim." [3] The Ninth Circuit, rejected the application based on the stringency of the test as applied to commercial speech, thereby denying the Anonymous Online Speakers their petition.

Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada presented an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit regarding First Amendment claims of anonymous online speakers involving commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit instructed lower courts not to apply heightened standard, such as Cahill, to commercial speech during discovery disputes.

Background

As stated in the court's decision, "Quixtar [was] a multilevel marketing business that distribut[ed] cosmetics and nutrition supplements through Independent Business Owners ("IBOs")." [1] Quixtar sued its competitor, Signature Management TEAM, for tortious interference with existing contracts in the U.S. District Court of Nevada Reno. Quixtar accused TEAM for organizing a "smear campaign" on the Internet to induce Quixtar IBOs to terminate their contracts at Quixtar and to join its competitor affiliated with TEAM.

During discovery, Quixtar requested TEAM to identify authors of the anonymous statements made in one video and four blogs. Examples of these statements are "Quixtar has regularly, but secretly, acknowledged that its products are overpriced and not sellable"; "Quixtar refused to pay bonuses to IBOs in good standard" and Quixtar "terminated IBOs without due process." [1] Quixtar alleged that these statements would support its claims for tortious interference with existing contracts because they are made by TEAM employees or agents. TEAM refused to disclose the identities on First Amendment grounds. After reviewing the specific statements from each source, the district court ordered TEAM to identify three of the five anonymous speakers. [4]

Ninth Circuit opinion

In deciding on protections for anonymous speech, the Ninth Circuit cited Talley v. California, which held that First Amendment protection applied to anonymous speech. It further explained the historical purpose of protecting such speech and referred to the anonymously published Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, both of which were instrumental during the infancy of the United States and the formation of its Constitution. The court also elaborated on the issue by explaining that First Amendment protections are crucial to the "robust exchange of ideas" [1] without "fear of economic or official retaliation." [5] However, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission showed that the tradition of protecting anonymous speech primarily applied to political causes, not necessarily commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, stated that the right to free speech is necessarily limited by the circumstances and type of speech at issue.

After reviewing the posted content in the case, the court classified the anonymous postings and videos as commercial speech. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court's application of the Cahill standard applied by the lower court, because the case did not involve commercial speech, but political speech.

The court looked to three cases that involved applying protection standards for anonymous speech: Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 591 F.3d 1147 (2010), NLRB v. Midland Daily News, 151 F.3d 472 (1998), and Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240 (2009). In Perry , the court considered granting a petition for mandamus regarding a discovery order for the disclosure of political campaign information. The Ninth Circuit determined that the lower court erred in determining that first amendment protections are not applicable to the disclosure of internal campaign communications. It further held that allowing discovery of this communication would have "a chilling effect on political association." In NLRB v. Midland Daily News, the Sixth Circuit upheld the quashing of a subpoena seeking the identity of an anonymous advertiser. [6] And in Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., the Fourth Circuit considered whether to allow a deposition of an anonymous speaker in a class action suit. [7] In these cases, what was at issue was commercial speech, however, as stated by the Ninth Circuit, other circuit courts have not followed any standards aside from the "long standing precepts governing commercial speech."

On the grounds that the anonymous postings constituted commercial speech, the Ninth Circuit rejected the district court's application of the Cahill standard. The Cahill standard requires the plaintiff to win a hypothetical motion for summary judgment. Under this standard, a plaintiff must submit sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case before discovering the identities of anonymous speakers. The Ninth Circuit explained that Cahill is a heightened standard because Cahill involved political speech. Therefore, the Court held that the Cahill standard to bar disclosure should not be applied to the commercial speech in this case.

The Ninth Circuit applied the clear error standard to review the district court's decision. The clear error standard is highly deferential and is only met when "the reviewing court is left with a 'definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'" by the district court. [8] Although the district court imposed the heightened Cahill standard for disclosure, the Ninth Circuit ruled that there was no clear error. It further explained that even if there was an error, the error did not affect the outcome of the case. The Ninth Circuit denied the Anonymous Online Speakers petition and upheld the district court decision. It further instructed the district court to determine the scope and procedure for disclosing the identities of the anonymous speakers. [1]

Significance

Anonymous Online Speakers is a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit on the issue of First Amendment claims of anonymous online speakers involving commercial speech. The Ninth Circuit lowered the standard for plaintiffs who attempt to identify anonymous online speakers during discovery. This case indicates that lower courts within the Ninth Circuit should not apply a heightened standard, such as Cahill, to commercial speech in discovery disputes. [2] Nevertheless, this case leaves some questions unanswered. The Ninth Circuit has yet to define the appropriate standard for commercial speech in discovery disputes. [9] [10]

The Ninth Circuit's decision in this case will likely be influential. Many "subpoena targets" such as Google, Yahoo! and Bing are located in the Ninth Circuit and are therefore affected by the decision in Anonymous Online Speakers. Only the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have previously addressed anonymous online commercial speech. [11] Other courts that have not decided on this issue may look to the Ninth Circuit that oversees lawsuits involving major Internet and technology companies. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Materials which the plaintiffs had worked with and were ready to republish were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amway North America</span> American multi-level marketing company

Amway North America is an American worldwide multi-level marketing (MLM) company, founded 1959 in Ada, Michigan, United States. It is privately owned by the families of Richard DeVos and Jay Van Andel through Alticor which is the holding company for businesses including Amway, Amway Global, Fulton Innovation, Amway Hotel Corporation, Hatteras Yachts, and manufacturing and logistics company Access Business Group. After the launch of Amway Global, it replaced the Amway business in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean, with the Amway business continuing to operate in other countries around the world. On May 1, 2009, Quixtar made the name change to Amway Global and fused the various different entities of the parent company.

An anonymous post, is an entry on a textboard, anonymous bulletin board system, or other discussion forums like Internet forum, without a screen name or more commonly by using a non-identifiable pseudonym. Some online forums such as Slashdot do not allow such posts, requiring users to be registered either under their real name or utilizing a pseudonym. Others like JuicyCampus, AutoAdmit, 2channel, and other Futaba-based imageboards thrive on anonymity. Users of 4chan, in particular, interact in an anonymous and ephemeral environment that facilitates rapid generation of new trends.

In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning revenue or a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service. The Supreme Court of the United States defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction".

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>Doe v. 2themart.com Inc.</i>

Doe v. 2themart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (2001), was a federal case decided by United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, on the issue of an individual's First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet and a private party's right to disclose the identity of the anonymous Internet user by enforcing a civil subpoena. The court held that 2TheMart.com (TMRT) failed to show that the identities of these anonymous Internet users were directly and materially relevant to the core defense in the litigation, and thus the subpoena should not be issued. Therefore, Doe's motion to quash the subpoena was granted.

Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756, is a New Jersey Superior Court case in which Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board. When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, and in doing so, created a set of guidelines for determining the circumstances under which an anonymous online speaker may be unmasked. This standard has since been applied to other cases, such as Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC, Independent Newspapers v. Brodie, and The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc.

<i>Doe v. Cahill</i>

Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, is a significant case in the realm of anonymous internet speech and the First Amendment. While similar issues had been tackled involving criticism of a publicly traded company, the case marks the first time the Delaware Supreme Court addressed the issue of anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous.

Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

<i>Doe v. Shurtleff</i>

Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit case assessing the constitutionality of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5, a law that requires sex offenders to register their internet identifiers with the state in order to "assist in investigating kidnapping and sex-related crimes, and in apprehending offenders." In this case, a convicted sex offender, appearing anonymously as John Doe, appealed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah to vacate an order enjoining the enforcement of Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5. Even though Doe did not dispute the state's interest in enacting such a statute, he believed that the statute's enforcement ran afoul of his:

<i>Krinsky v. Doe 6</i>

Krinsky v. Doe 6, was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, addressing the evidentiary standard required of plaintiffs seeking the identification of anonymous Internet posters. The case addressed defamation and the right to anonymous speech on the Internet. Plaintiff Lisa Krinsky sued Doe 6, an anonymous poster to Yahoo! message boards, for defamation. Krinsky served a subpoena to Yahoo! for Doe 6's identity. Doe 6 filed a motion to quash the subpoena, "contending that he had a First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet."

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> Case concerning online defamation

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.

<i>Sevcik v. Sandoval</i>

Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by that state's constitution and statutory law. The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers. The decision effected identified that some commercial speech may have weaker First Amendment free speech protections than non-commercial speech and that states can compel such commercial speech to protect their interests; future cases have relied on the "Zauderer standard" to determine the constitutionality of state laws that compel commercial speech as long as the information to be disclosed is "purely factual and uncontroversial".

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Montana law permitting only licensed physicians to perform abortions. The Court summarily reversed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had held that the law was likely intended to inhibit abortion access. In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Court found that there was no evidence that the Montana legislature acted with an invalid intent. The Court also reiterated its earlier holding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the states have broad flexibility to regulate abortion so long as their regulations do not create an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Three dissenting justices, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote that they would have declined to hear the case because proceedings were still pending in the lower courts. The law itself was later struck down by the Montana Supreme Court on state-constitutional grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision has nonetheless had a significant impact on modern American abortion jurisprudence.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that requires non-profit organizations to disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state. The case was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights, was not narrowly tailored, and was constitutionally invalid.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada (In re: Anonymous Online Speakers), 611F.3d653 ((2010)).
  2. 1 2 3 Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Volume 7, Issue 2 Fall 2011: Ninth Circuit Unmasks Anonymous Internet Users And Lowers The Bar For Disclosure Of Online Speakers.
  3. ↑ Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 611 F.3d 653 [2010] (quoting Doe v. Cahill , 884 A.2d 451 at 463 (2005))
  4. ↑ Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Management Team, LLC, 566F.Supp.2d1205 ((2008)).
  5. ↑ Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 611 F.3d 653 [2010] (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995))
  6. ↑ NLRB v. Midland Daily News Archived April 2, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  7. ↑ "Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-01-19. Retrieved 2012-03-06.
  8. ↑ Anonymous Online Speakers v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 611 F.3d 653 [2010] (quoting In re Cohen v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 586 F.3d 703, 708 (2009))
  9. ↑ Traverse Legal Internet Law: Ninth Circuit Lowers the Standard for Identifying Anonymous Internet Speakers.
  10. ↑ Digestible Law Perkins Coie's Internet Case Digest: Ninth Circuit Upholds Unmasking of Online Anonymous Speakers Archived 2010-11-06 at the Wayback Machine .
  11. ↑ JOLT digest: Ninth Circuit Argues for Less Stringent Test for Protecting Anonymous Online Commercial Speech Archived 2012-01-24 at the Wayback Machine .
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.