For the Record - Past Litigation Involving Investors Hub

Return to Summary

Medytox Solutions, Inc., et al. vs., Inc. (February, 2013)

Summary: Medytox, Seamus Lagan and William G. Forhan sued iHub in Florida state court for refusing their demand to remove third-party content. Medytox pursued this action despite their attorney's acknowledgement of binding legal precedent that required dismissal of their lawsuit. They argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not bar injunctive relief, despite the very plain language of the statute and substantial legal precedent to that effect. After losing twice in the trial court, Medytox appealed. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal found in favor of iHub. Medytox then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review the decision, which was denied.

Having been twice denied by the trial court, followed by the Court of Appeals and then the Florida Supreme Court, Medytox then filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court to review the case. Their petition suggested that court decisions in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits are split from Florida (and other Federal circuits) on the issue of Section 230 immunity encompassing declaratory relief actions. To the contrary, no such split exists; the misconstrued decisions cited by Medytox failed to address the question before the Court. In October 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari of Medytox's application for review.

Following is the Medytox train wreck in slow motion, including all appellate briefs and decisions:

Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida

Case No. 1304498

Outcome: iHub's Motion to Dismiss is Granted. Medytox is allowed 20 days to amend their complaint.

Update: On 6/19/2013 Medytox filed an amended complaint in which they raised the same statutorily barred claims as their original complaint, which was dismissed, and added a claim for injunctive relief. In response, iHub moved for dismissal as Medytox failed to correct any of the fatal flaws that resulted in the prior dismissal.

Outcome: On 7/18/2013 iHub's Motion to Dismiss is Granted With Prejudice.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Florida

Case No. 4D13-3469 (LT 13004498)
MEDYTOX SOLUTIONS, INC., Seamus Lagan and William G. Forhan, Appellants,
152 So.3d 727 (2014)

Outcome: On 12/03/2014 the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida issued an Opinion which Affirmed the decision in favor of iHub. The Appeal Court found that the immunity afforded to interactive computer services by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act encompasses claims for declaratory and injunctive relief such as those sought in this case. In its opinion, the Appeal Court concluded:

"The statute [Section 230] precludes not only “liability,” but also causes of action for other forms of relief based upon any State or local law inconsistent with section 230. An action to force a website to remove content on the sole basis that the content is defamatory is necessarily treating the website as a publisher, and is therefore inconsistent with section 230. Thus, by the plain language of the statute, the immunity afforded by section 230 encompasses the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief sought in this case."

Florida Supreme Court:

Case No. SC15-1 (4D13-3469, 062013CA004498AXXXCE)

United States Supreme Court:

Case No. 15-6

Outcome: On 10/05/2015 the United States Supreme Court denied Medytox's application for review. A totally foreseeable outcome before the Medytox ever brought the original action.

Media, Academia and Other Jurisprudence

Consent Preferences