107 F. Supp. 3d 896
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Plaintiff Bridget Bittman, a public library marketing employee, alleges Fox and DuJan engaged in an online and in-person campaign of harassment and impersonation after disputing library internet policy.
- Allegations include social-media posts accusing Bittman of making false police reports, posting photos of Bittman and her home, publishing a video with allegedly defamatory captions, and creating a fake Facebook page ("Sassy Plants") impersonating her floral business.
- Bittman sued asserting federal claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and Stored Communications Act (SCA), and multiple Illinois common-law claims including assault, defamation per se, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and a claim for injunctive relief.
- Defendants Fox and DuJan moved to dismiss several counts under Rule 12(b)(6); two other defendants settled.
- The court accepted the factual allegations as pleaded but analyzed whether those facts plausibly state each legal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFAA and SCA liability for creating a fake Facebook page | Creating the Sassy Plants page violated Facebook's terms of service, so defendants accessed/ exceeded authorization on Facebook's computers | CFAA/SCA target hacking/electronic trespass, not violations of website terms or impersonation | Dismissed — Terms-of-service breach does not equal unauthorized access under CFAA/SCA |
| Civil assault (DuJan) | DuJan followed and approached Bittman at a board meeting and interfered with her 911 call, causing apprehension of imminent offensive contact | Conduct was not threatening or imminently violent; no menacing words/gestures alleged | Dismissed — allegations do not show reasonable apprehension of imminent battery |
| Defamation per se (Sassy Plants impersonation) | Fake page published statements and images imputing lack of professionalism and discriminatory bias (e.g., use of “fruit”) | Statements are nonactionable, innocuous, or susceptible to innocent construction; plaintiff fails to plead precise defamatory content | Dismissed — alleged statements not defamatory per se and susceptible to innocent construction; unspecified „fruit" uses lack particularity |
| False light | Impersonation and postings placed Bittman in a false, offensive public light | Overlaps with defamation analysis; plaintiff fails to plead statements that are defamatory per se or special damages | Dismissed — no actionable false-light pleaded and no special damages alleged |
| IIED | Pattern of insults, impersonation, home photos, and alleged defamatory statements caused severe emotional distress | Conduct, while mean-spirited, is not extreme/outrageous as required under Illinois law | Dismissed — alleged conduct does not meet Illinois extreme-and-outrageous standard |
| Injunctive relief as a standalone claim | Requests equitable relief to stop defendants' conduct | Injunction is a remedy, not an independent cause of action | Dismissed — injunction is a remedy and not a separate claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility and legal conclusions)
- Int’l Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (CFAA’s purpose targets hacking and internal data sabotage)
- Matot v. CH, 975 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (court declined to extend CFAA to fake social-media profiles)
- United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (holding terms-of-service breach alone should not create criminal CFAA liability)
- Kolegas v. Heftel Broad. Corp., 154 Ill.2d 1 (defamation per se standard and innocent construction doctrine)
- Green v. Rogers, 234 Ill.2d 478 (pleading particularity for defamatory statements)
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill.2d 263 (IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct)
- Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 322 F.3d 918 (false light requiring special damages when not defamation per se)