Façonnable’s Wikipedia Defamation Case

anonymous defamation wikipedia Façonnable
Anonymous posters defamed clothing retailer Façonnable on Wikipedia — and the company was able to get a court forcing the revelation of the posters’ names for purposes of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: the judge in this case eventually granted Façonnable‘s request for a court order revealing the names of the anonymous posters. Soon after, news broke that both parties had reached an agreement and Façonnable filed a voluntary dismissal (with prejudice).

Clothing Retailer Seeks Redress Over Derogatory “Facts” Added To Company’s Wikipedia Page

Clothing retailer Façonnable is embroiled in an interesting anonymous defamation case. The defendants — currently only known by their IP addresses and identified as John Does 1-10 — allegedly modified a Wikipedia entry to say that Façonnable supported the Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah. Those allegations have since been removed from Wikpedia, but Façonnable is now attempting to uncover the defendant’s identities in service of a trade libel lawsuit.

The clothing company requested a subpoena compelling ISP Skybeam to disclose the Does’ identities. However,  the court granted Skybeam’s motion to stay. The appeals court, which reviewed the lower court’s decision, found that the case involved a “delicate balancing of the Does’ First Amendment rights” with Façonnable’s “right to litigate its claims .”

When Must ISPs Turn Over The Names Of Private Citizens For An Anonymous Defamation Lawsuit?

Under what circumstances can a court order a company to reveal the personally identifiable information of a private citizen? In Arizona, the case of Mobilisa, Inc. v. John Doe 1 and The Suggestion Box, Inc. adopted a standard set in New Jersey by the case of Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). The Dendrite case required the following to get a subpoena compelling a business to reveal an anonymous speaker:

  1. The plaintiff must make a good faith effort to notify the defendant of the subpoena being sought so that the defendant can respond.
  2. The plaintiff must specifically identify the defamatory statements that the defendant made.
  3. The plaintiff must establish that he or she has a prima facie cause of action.
  4. The plaintiff must provide evidence of each element of the cause of action.
  5. “[T]he court must balance the defendant’s First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant’s identity.” If the defendant’s interests in this balancing test outweigh those of the plaintiff, the subpoena will not be granted, even if all of the other elements have been met.

As long as Façonnable made a good faith effort to notify the defendants (for example, by sending them a private message on Wikipedia), and was specific in its request, they should have no problem getting a court order. The only contentious issue will be whose rights deserve greater protection — the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s.

Get In Touch With An Anonymous Defamation Lawyer

For more information about how the Dendrite test may apply to you as an anonymous publisher or a person who has been defamed by an anonymous publisher, contact an Internet defamation lawyer.

Let's Talk »
Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© 2017 Kelly Warner Law PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
800: 1-866-570-8585
Office: 480-588-0449