Kim Kardashian sued for Twitter defamation

By Eriq Gardner

Kim Kardashian makes a lot of dough endorsing products on her Twitter feed, but might the cookie soon crumble?

The reality TV star is getting the Courtney Love treatment, meaning a lawsuit over allegedly defamatory statements she posted on Twitter.

The plaintiff in the case is a Miami doctor who created and markets a cookie diet and weight-loss program. Dr. Siegel's Cookie Diet has become a popular subject for celebrity news vehicles like Entertainment Tonight. In turn, Dr. Siegel's website links to these news articles and broadcasts in an effort to bolster its own legitimacy.

The appearance of an endorsement has upset Kardashian, who tasked her lawyers with demanding that Dr. Siegel take down the links. Kardashian's stamp of approval is worth a lot these days. According to recent reports, she earns up to $10,000-per-tweet, making her Twitter feed by some calculations worth more than any website.

According to Dr. Siegel's complaint, filed in Miami circuit court last week, Kardashian took it into her own hands to disclaim any connection with the cookie diet. In late October, she made two tweets:

• "Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!"
• If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!" 

Dr. Siegel now claims these statements failed to include the fact that Kardashian is a paid spokesperson for QuickTrim. Her Twitter feed has more than 2.7 million followers, and we'd be surprised if her lawyers weren't boning up on new FTC disclosure guidelines for celebrities and bloggers. Kardashian's $10,000-per-tweet endorsements, however, are hardly a secret.

The litigation in the oven is just getting hot. How did news outlets like Entertainment Tonight come to believe celebrities like Kardashian were eating to cookies to lose weight? We expect to see a countersuit soon with a possible answer. 

Can Britney Spears sue Twitter after account is hacked?

By Eriq Gardner

If Twitter isn't careful, the micro-blogging service could be facing some angry, litigious celebrities whose images have been damaged by hijacking impostors.

Recall that in May, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa filed claims against Twitter for violating his trademark, misappropriating his likeness, invading his privacy and damaging his reputation after a user of the microblogging service registered an account pretending to be Tony LaRussa. The lawsuit was later settled, but many legal observers believed Twitter would have a strong "fair use" defense based on parody.

What would have happened in that lawsuit if the account wasn't a parody and Twitter blessed it as legitimate?

In June, Twitter introduced a new program whereby it would verify the identities of celebrities. Lately, the service has been hit by a rash of hackers who have gained access to peoples accounts.

The latest victim is Britney Spears. Here's a screen shot of the singer's "verified account" from this morning. "Britneyspears" tweets about how she's giving herself to Satan and awaiting the "new world order." The Twitter account was updated a few minutes ago to note the hack.

Levi Johnston's lawyers get their Conan apology (video)

By Eriq Gardner

Conan O'Brien may have saved himself from a defamation lawsuit last night on "The Tonight Show."

After O'Brien showcased a skit on Wednesday night featuring William Shatner reading the supposed tweets of Levi Johnston — the man most famous for getting Sarah Palin's daughter pregnant — he was contacted by Johnson's legal representation informing the host that the Twitter account was run by an imposter.

So O'Brien apologized on last night's show to Johnston, who will soon appear nude in Playgirl magazine. Then, he cracked a joke ("Levi is clearly a great American. We wish him the best of luck as he trains for his upcoming naked photo shoot.") and brought back Shatner to stage a reading of verified quotes from Johnson.

Obviously, the mistake was innocent. Even if O'Brien didn't apologize, most courts would probably recognize Johnston as a public figure who would need to show "actual malice" to win a defamation claim. This only goes to show that celebrities should register official Twitter accounts even if they don't intend to use them. Even D-list ones like Johnston.

Courtney Love loses motion to dismiss Twitter defamation case

By Eriq Gardner

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has denied Courtney Love's attempts to throw out what may be a precedent-setting Twitter defamation lawsuit.

In March, clothing designer Dawn Simorangkir sued Love for defamation, invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress for "an extensive rant" on Twitter about how she was billed for custom clothing. Simorangkir claimed Love embarked on an "obsessive and delusional crusade to terrorize and destroy Simorangkir."

In response, Love filed a bizarre special motion to strike that accused Simorangkir of being a drug-pushing former prostitute who had exhibited racist, homophobic and mean-spirited behavior to Love. The singer asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit because she had a right to "publicly warn other consumers about unscrupulous vendors."

At a hearing yesterday, Judge Aurelio Munoz was less than impressed with Love's anti-SLAPP motion, saying that Simorangkir had a good chance of winning her case.

Judge Munoz had to analyze whether Love's statements on Twitter constituted a matter of public interest, protected by free speech. Munoz found that the case was only a "discreet private dispute," dismissing arguments by Love's attorneys that the singer's celebrity shielded her from Simorangkir's defamation claims. Since the judge ruled the plaintiff had a probability of succeeding on claims that Love's tweets were malicious statements, the case will now head to discovery.

Love's lawyer said she will appeal. Earlier this month, Love closed down her Twitter account.

Hey, showbiz folks: Check your contract before your next tweet

By Andrew Wallenstein and Matthew Belloni

Hollywood is coming down with the Twitter jitters.

There’s a growing number of studio deals with new language aimed specifically at curbing usage of social-media outlets by actors, execs and other creatives. The goal: plugging leaks of disparaging or confidential information about productions via the likes of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.  

A recent talent contract from Disney includes a new clause forbidding confidentiality breaches via “interactive media such as Facebook, Twitter, or any other interactive social network or personal blog.”  

Over at DreamWorks, a writer’s deal cautions not to jump the gun on studio press releases via “a social networking site, blog or other Internet-type site.” An agent spotted a talent deal with a stricture that forbids bashing any element of a production with social media. 

The crackdown comes as creatives on both sides of the camera have taken to the Web to share candid thoughts, at times circumventing traditional studio PR voiceboxes. Paula Abdul surprised Fox executives by tweeting news of her parting ways with “American Idol.” Ryan Seacrest broke the news of Ben Silverman’s transition out of NBC on his Twitter feed. 

The Twitter jitters are hardly confined to Hollywood. From professional sports leagues like the NFL to news media outlets like the Washington Post, industries are openly struggling with how to make sure social media doesn’t expose the inner workings of their operations. 

While Hollywood recognizes the marketing value of social media, the backlash from business affairs execs is a testament to the leaks and potentially damaging misinformation these emerging technologies make possible — as well as the control studios like to maintain over their messaging to consumers. 

Two weeks ago, Fox had a mini crisis on its hands when Hart Hanson, executive producer for the Fox series “Bones,” tweeted, “First time in ‘Bones’ history we are shut down from production. Damn swine flu!” 

It was a joke that some news outlets misconstrued when a separate news item surfaced reporting “Bones” star David Boreanaz also had the flu. An hour later, Hanson returned to Twitter to clarify that neither Boreanaz nor anyone on set had anything but the standard flu. 

No wonder deal language has gone technophobe. 

“This is just the beginning,” says a top talent lawyer. “Hollywood has a long history of controlling what talent says in the media. This is just a new area of media that hasn’t been controlled yet.”

Maybe celebrities staying off Twitter isn't the worst idea

By Eriq Gardner

Alas, the reigning champ of Twitter vitriol has decided to hang up her boxing gloves.

Courtney Love has closed down her Twitter account just days after her daughter, Frances Bean Cobain, went after Ali Lohan — Linday's sister — on the micro-blogging service. Mother and daughter are both tweet-obsolete for the moment. 

The development occurs as Miley Cyrus raps a good-bye ode to Twitter on YouTube and her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, tries to guilt her into staying on Twitter.

Despite its popularity for public figures looking to control the conversation with their fans, Twitter hasn't been all fun and games. Love is dealing with a defamation claim after tweeting disgust at a fashion designer, and Demi Moore and Perez Hilton were also exploring legal action after their war of 140 characters or less with each other last month. 

The law on what you can and can't say on Twitter hasn't been refined yet by a court, but assuming it follows the general defamation book, it'll be hard to win a defamation lawsuit. But that won't stop many plaintiffs from trying. 

Sensing a lot of twitter celebrity backlash stories in the press? We'd guess that Twitter probably scares publicists more than lawyers.

Courtney Love threatening to sue Activision over Guitar Hero

By Eriq Gardner

We've noted how Courtney Love became the first celebrity sued for defaming another individual on Twitter and the audacious response she filed in the case claiming the plaintiff was a drug-pushing, racist prostitute.

Based on her tweets in the last 24 hours, we can expect more interesting legal action involving the singer.

Perhaps most fascinating, Love is threatening to sue Activision, the makers of Guitar Hero video game, over the latest installment of the franchise. 

In Guitar Hero 5, game-players who successfully complete a series of challenges are given the opportunity to be Kurt Cobain rocking to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Lithium." There's even an option to have Cobain lip-sync to Bon Jovi, Public Enemy, Megadeth, and others. (Check out a video.)

"(I) never singed off on the avatar, let alone this fucking feature!" she tweeted about her late husband's Guitar Hero image. "There's been four breaches of a very strict contract."

She adds that she's disgusted by Activision and pledges to sue.

Love's outrage seems to be tied into some money troubles she's been having and some lingering difficulties over the Cobain estate. She claims on Twitter that her daughter Frances Bean is "penniless" and notes (all spelling/grammar errors are hers) that she "was forced by lying bankerlawyers to sell some publishing...wich forces me to lose some power, the loser bully who put money in the bank commissioned illegally a child and then stole every pennydid it."

Got that? She also has some choice words for her former attorney Howard Weitzman that we won't repeat because we know Weitzman is a good defamation lawyer.

Courtney Love responds to twitter defamation claim

By Eriq Gardner

In March, we wrote how Courtney Love became the first celebrity sued for Twitter defamation.

Love has filed an interesting special motion to strike fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir's lawsuit against her. Among the claims:

• Simorangkir "repeatedly asked Love both to partake in and to procure cocaine, Percoset, and other illegal and prescription drugs for herself and her husband, and she discussed both her past drug use and drug dealing."
• "After Love described some of the emotions and personal stories that led her to write (the song "Teenage Whore"), Simorangkir told her that she had worked in the past as a prostitute..."
• Simorangkir "also exhibited racist, homophobic, and generally mean-spirited behavior with Love"  

These are just some of the allegations in one of the nastiest motions we've ever seen. It's unclear what sort of legal weight these new provocations carry. Love seems to have a better chance if she sticks to "free speech" arguments and traditional defenses against defamation. For instance, in the motion, Love says, 

"As a musician and artist, I believe strongly in free speech rights, and I further believe strongly in the right of consumers to publicly warn other consumers about unscrupulous vendors. I live my life in the public eye, and I maintain both a MySpace page and Twitter page to ensure that my personal perspective on the events of my life is publicized rather than the viewpoint of someone else. For these reasons I made several comments in March 2009 on the Etsy consumer feedback page for Simorangkir in which I described how Simorangkir had manipulated her personal relationship with me to steal hundreds of thousands of textiles, vintage clothing, and related raw materials from me to use for her own ends."

Interestingly, Love is represented by Keith Fink, arch-enemy of many celebrities and the American Apparel clothing chain. Kind of an irony that Fink defends a celebrity in this potentially precedent-setting case, although we think we see some of Fink's legal stylings here.

UPDATED: Additionally, Fink tells us that he'll be filing a countersuit soon for breach of contract, fraud and trademark infringement against Simorangkir. The coming lawsuit revolves around an agreement between the two parties on a line of clothing. Courtney Love claims to have given Simorangkir vintage  clothing owned by silent movie stars to "upcycle." Love claims Simorangkir wanted more money than agreed upon, and when Love refused, Simorangkir sold the clothes. Additionally, Love says the fashion designer stole her idea for a clothing line called Never the Bride and hired a model who looked exactly like her to market the clothing.

Twitter sued for patent infringement

By Eriq Gardner

Twitter has become so popular that it's the forum that Paul Abdul informs us she won't becoming back to "American Idol" next season and the digital hub that strikes fear in the hearts of ESPN executives.

Popularity breeds jealousy, and almost every successful digital media company has been sued for patent infringement. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but it's time for Twitter's day in court.

Texas-based TechRadium has filed a lawsuit in Houston district court against Twitter for patent infringement. Here's the complaint.

TechRadium says it develops, sells, and services mass notification systems and alleges Twitter is violating its IRIS product patent. Here's an abstract on patent #7130389:

A digital notification and response system utilizes an administrator interface to transmit a message from an administrator to a user contact device. The system comprises a dynamic information database that includes user contact data, priority information, and response data. The administrator initiates distribution of the message based upon grouping information, priority information, and the priority order. (Read the rest here.)

TechRadium also says the infringement is "willful," which would increase damages if it is successful in court. 

Is TechCrunch liable for publishing Twitter documents?

By Eriq Gardner

As technology develops and plays a bigger part in all our lives, we're beginning to sense a burgeoning relationship between hackers of the world and some in the media who are hungry to post scintillating, private information.

Sometimes a reporter is the beneficiary of documents passed along by some hacker, as was the case last year when Gawker published e-mails from vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. And sometimes a reporter works actively with hackers to attain sensitive information. Just last week, Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers paid about $1.6 million to settle court cases involving allegations that its reporters worked with private investigators to hack into numerous public figures' cellphones. 

What are the ethical boundaries in the media's relationship with a hacker? What's the legal liability for posting information obtained after an individual's violation of the law?

We might be seeing a case enfolding that will explore both questions.

Last week, TechCrunch editors got their hands on some of Twitter's confidential corporate and personal documents, including financial forecasts for the company and what TechCrunch described as an "awesome" pitch for a reality television show called "Final Tweet." 

The documents were given to the highly-trafficked blog by a hacker who appears to have obtained them through surreptitious means. TechCrunch described the dilemma over whether they should post the documents. After speaking with some Twitter lawyers, they decided to publish some of the documents with "news value."

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone says the company is talking to legal counsel and exploring its options. We assume that litigation is on the table. 

TechCrunch's action is kicking off some debate over the ethics of a news organization's relationship with hackers (1, 2, 3) but just as pertinent is the blog's liability. Does the First Amendment protect the publication of stolen Twitter documents? Twitter just hired a new general counsel and if he wants to make a mark, here's a place to start.