MAUREEN, our client, is a 23 year old woman living in Delaware.Recently, MAUREEN became involved in a romantic relationship over the internet with a man named John, who presented himself as a fellow 23 year-old living also living in Delaware.Throughout the six months they spoke over the internet, MAUREEN never met John, but only interacted with him over email.John provided pictures of himself to MAUREEN, but never communicated in person or via video.

Unbeknownst to MAUREEN, John was not the person she thought he was, but was instead a 35 year old man named RANDY living in California.RANDY, an aspiring actor looking to cash in on the "Catfishing" craze, created the identity of John using information from a family friend of his living in West Virginia named STEVEN.RANDY then posted his experience as John to a blog that gained publicity for his depiction of his relationship with MAUREEN.RANDY used MAUREEN'S real name and emails on his blog, including sharing secrets about MAUREEN that MAUREEN expressed to "John" in confidence.RANDY'S blog also repeatedly spoke negatively of MAUREEN, poking fun at her interest in John and calling her a "crazy shut-in who is obsessed with men".

(1)Please state any applicable claims (privacy and/or speech) that can be filed by MAUREEN against RANDY.Please include all possible claims and whether you think the individual claims would be successful.

(2)Please state whether Delaware would have personal jurisdiction over RANDY for this lawsuit.Please only answer this question in the context of MAUREEN suing RANDY.

When we first began investigating this suit, we sent a letter to STEVEN, the person whose likeness was used for the catfishing scheme, believing he was responsible for the website and the harm to MAUREEN.STEVEN has informed us of his involvement and has asked if we can bring a lawsuit against RANDY on his behalf as well, but only wants to participate if we can file the claim in West Virginia.Luckily, our office has an attorney who is barred in West Virginia and is permitted to file a lawsuit there.

(3)Please state any applicable claims (privacy and/or speech) that can be filed by STEVEN against RANDY.Please include all possible lawsuits and whether you think the lawsuits would be successful.

(4)Please state whether West Virginia would have personal jurisdiction over RANDY for this lawsuit.Please only answer this question in the context of STEVEN suing RANDY.

Finally, our investigation of this claim lead us to the website that RANDY used to file his claim, which was posted onwww.stevesdatingdisasters.com.The website is a collection of posts made by RANDY, in which he is deceiving multiple men and women about his identity and then posting the contents of those conversations online.The website is run through web provider named WEBSPACE, LLC, which is a Florida corporation that is based out of Florida.WEBSPACE acts as a web-site start-up company that prides itself on customer service and assisting customers with making the best website possible.We received a file that indicates that WEBSPACE not only provided RANDY with the internet space to post this website, but also assisted with the design layout and the mechanics of how to post the private messages to the website template.In a letter sent by WEBSPACE, they claim that they were aware of the contents of the website, but do not feel that it was their responsibility to censor paying customers.WEBSPACE also claimed that they feared a lawsuit from RANDY if they took his webpage down since RANDY has a First Amendment right to post on the internet.

(5)Please state whether WEBSPACE could be sued under the Communications Decency Act.

(6)If WEBSPACE took down Randy's website, would they be liable for violating RANDY'S First Amendment rights?Why or why not?

In addition to contacting our office to file a lawsuit, MAUREEN contacted the Delaware News Journal, who posted a lengthy story about internet crimes and how the State of Delaware has not done enough to protect its citizens from online scams and deceptions.The State of Delaware received multiple complains from concerned citizens, which compelled the State to pass the ONLINE WATCHDOG ACT OF 2019 (hereinafter "the OWA").The OWA sought to control the use of defamatory and harmful language online, and in particular was targeted at online bullies and hate speech.One particular provision of the OWA stated that website providers like WEBSPACE would be required to report an inventory of their customers to the State, and that for any Delaware-based web-provider, no more than 20% of its customer base (i.e. the websites posted to the internet) could be from non-Delaware citizens.The State required monthly reporting to a State agency that was tasked with reviewing the files to ensure compliance.One Delaware-based web corporation named BRAIN PAGES, INC, has approached our office to see if limiting the providers to only Delaware customers is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

(7)Please state whether or not BRAIN PAGES has a First Amendment claim against the State of Delaware under the registration requirement of the OWA.

(8)If the Court finds that the OWA violates the First Amendment of the US and Delaware Constitutions, what will happen to the OWA?What authority does the Court have over the State statute?

BRAIN PAGES has another issue that has come up concerning the OWA and the usage of another one of its websites, and they would like our position on how to defend the lawsuit.Following the passage of the OWA, BRAIN PAGES was forced to shut down an independent social media site known aswww.watercooler.com.WATER COOLER was intended to be a website where large public businesses could contain a social media network for their employees (so that employees would be less likely to use Facebook and Twitter while at work).WATER COOLER is not based out of Delaware, and so BRAIN PAGES was forced to terminate its contract with WATER COOLER at the end of the month to comply with the OWA.WATER COOLER has brought a lawsuit arguing that BRAIN PAGES has violated its First Amendment rights and that BRAIN PAGES registration with the State has created a government relationship.

(9)Please state whether or not BRAIN PAGES can be sued for a Constitutional violation based on its relationship with the State of Delaware under the OWA.

(10) WATER COOLER has filed a FOIA request to the State Agency that maintains BRAIN PAGES' registration filings under the OWA.BRAIN PAGES claims that its filings are private, and has sought to block the State from disclosing that information.Do you think that we would be able to file a lawsuit stopping that FOIA request?