In addition, he tried to blame Rajalan for his response to another woman’s thread on a convicted rapist’s mug shot. Despite the lace link featuring another man’s name and image, D’Ambrosio claimed she was defamed and suffered “emotional distress, emotional loss, loss of professional opportunities, and damage to her reputation and relationships.”
According to Hamilton, her goal was to sue “everyone remotely connected to these posts, including the woman who met her and her parents, the women who commented on the posts, the operators of the Facebook group and Facebook itself, for every possible, imaginable claim.”
On his blog, Trent acknowledged that these Facebook groups were “created to help women navigate dating safely,” but he claimed that some women were abusing the groups instead of accusing innocent men of spreading sexually transmitted infections or forcing women to have abortions.
“They make it easier for people to contact their bosses, their employers, to add to the damage,” Trent said.
Importantly, D’Ambrosio failed to allege any specific harm caused by the post, and there is no evidence that the post caused a real-world improper relationship.
He never disputed that what women said about him was false. Very late in the game, his lawyers tried to save Rajala’s case by claiming that the screenshot he shared was doctored. But the panel rejected that argument because D’Ambrosio had had ample opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the text earlier in the trial and had never done so before oral arguments on appeal.
Eric Goldman, an Internet law expert following the case, explained it D’Ambrosio’s case is similar to other lawsuits in which men have tried and failed to have critical posts removed from Pour the Tea-branded Facebook groups, such as the Chicago-based Are We Dating the Same Guy group? Many times, these people fail because posts like Rajala’s are considered protected by the First Amendment and defamation laws in states like Illinois.
