litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation

In May 2011, Louis Bacon, a hedge fund manager, obtained a court order in Great Britain, where he owned property, against the Wikimedia Foundation, The Denver Post and WordPress.com to compel them to reveal the identity of persons who he claimed had anonymously defamed him on Wikipedia and the other two websites. However, legal experts said that the order was probably unenforceable in the United States.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/09/us-billionaire-wikipedia-defamation|title=US billionaire wins high court order over Wikipedia 'defamation'|work=The Guardian|date=May 9, 2011|access-date=December 15, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161202001624/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/09/us-billionaire-wikipedia-defamation|archive-date=December 2, 2016|url-status=live}}{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/05/10/u-s-law-protects-anonymous-speech-not-billionaires/|title=U.S. Law Protects Anonymous Speech, Not Billionaires|work=Forbes|date=May 10, 2011|access-date=September 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730101514/https://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/05/10/u-s-law-protects-anonymous-speech-not-billionaires/|archive-date=July 30, 2017|url-status=live}} Initially, the Foundation agreed to give the information to Bacon's solicitors,{{cite news |title=Hedge fund boss wins Wikipedia case |work=Daily Telegraph |date=10 May 2011 |location=London, England}} but later asserted that it would cooperate only with a court order in the U.S. It said, "we do not comply with foreign subpoenas absent an immediate threat to life or limb." Automattic, which owns WordPress.com, said Bacon would need a court order but agreed to remove any defamatory material from its websites.

In March 2015, in Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA, the Wikimedia Foundation, along with other groups, sued the National Security Agency over its upstream mass surveillance program.{{cite web |last=Ingram |first=David |date=10 March 2015 |title=NSA sued by Wikimedia, rights groups over mass surveillance |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150930190851/http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310 |archive-date=September 30, 2015 |access-date=28 August 2015 |work=Reuters}} After further rulings in multiple courts including the District Court and Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case and invoked the state secrets privilege, which ruled for the NSA, ending the litigation.{{cite news |last1=Chung |first1=Andrew |date=21 February 2023 |title=U.S. Supreme Court snubs Wikipedia bid to challenge NSA surveillance |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ |access-date=22 February 2023 |work=Reuters |language=en |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331122353/https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ |url-status=live }}

In January 2019, a court in Germany ruled against the Wikimedia Foundation, prompting it to remove part of the history and the allegedly defamatory content in the German Wikipedia about professor Alex Waibel.{{Cite news |last=Deep |first=Aroon |date=2024-09-10 |title=On ANI's defamation suit against Wikipedia {{!}} Explained |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ani-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia/article68627535.ece |access-date=2024-11-19 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X |archive-date=October 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241005022343/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ani-defamation-suit-against-wikipedia/article68627535.ece |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Hunt |first=Pete |date=September 23, 2024 |title=Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/ |access-date=2024-11-19 |website=The Diplomat |language=en-US |archive-date=September 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240922095101/https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/ |url-status=live }} The Wikipedia article's content was ruled defamatory because the link supporting its claims was no longer active, a phenomenon known as link rot.{{Cite web |last1=Rogers |first1=Jacob |last2=Davenport |first2=Allison |date=2019-04-11 |title=A German court forced us to remove part of a Wikipedia article's 'history.' Here's what that means. |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/11/a-german-court-forced-us-to-remove-part-of-a-wikipedia-articles-history-heres-what-that-means/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190414064947/https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/11/a-german-court-forced-us-to-remove-part-of-a-wikipedia-articles-history-heres-what-that-means/ |archive-date=April 14, 2019 |access-date=2019-05-22 |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2018-10-31 |title=Raue LLP successful against Wikipedia |publisher=Raue |url=https://raue.com/en/news/industries/media-and-telecommunications/media/raue-llp-successful-against-wikipedia/ |access-date=2024-07-24 |language=en-US |archive-date=August 28, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240828171800/https://raue.com/en/news/industries/media-and-telecommunications/media/raue-llp-successful-against-wikipedia/ |url-status=live }}

In 2021, Portuguese businessman Caesar DePaço sued the WMF over his article, demanding removal of information he found "defamatory", as well as mention of his donation to the far-right CHEGA party.{{Cite web |date=15 April 2021 |title=Nota pública de esclarecimento de César do Paço |trans-title=Public note of clarification from Caesar DePaço |url=https://ionline.sapo.pt/artigo/731422/nota-p-blica-de-esclarecimento-de-cesar-do-paco?seccao=Portugal_i |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210426014221/https://ionline.sapo.pt/artigo/731422/nota-p-blica-de-esclarecimento-de-cesar-do-paco?seccao=Portugal_i |archive-date=26 April 2021 |access-date=2023-07-27 |website=ionline |language=pt}} In September 2023, the Supreme Court of Portugal found in favour of DePaço,{{Cite web |title=Supremo Tribunal obriga 'Wikipédia' a remover referências a César do Paço |trans-title=Supreme Court forces Wikipedia to remove references to Caesar DePaço |url=https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/supremo-tribunal-obriga-wikipedia-a-remover-referencias-a-cesar-do-paco |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231204062729/https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/supremo-tribunal-obriga-wikipedia-a-remover-referencias-a-cesar-do-paco |archive-date=4 December 2023 |access-date=2023-12-05 |website=Correio da Manhã |language=pt-PT}} which was reaffirmed in January 2024.{{Cite web |title=Wikipédia volta a perder contra César do Paço |trans-title=Wikipedia loses against Caesar DePaço again|url=https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/wikipedia-volta-a-perder-contra-cesar-do-paco |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129145145/https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/wikipedia-volta-a-perder-contra-cesar-do-paco |archive-date=29 January 2024 |access-date=2024-01-29 |website=Sábado |language=pt-pt}}

In 2023, French businessman Laurent de Gourcuff engaged in litigation against the Wikimedia Foundation in order to force them to reveal the IP address of a French Wikipedia editor who added content about Gourcuff that he found defamatory.{{Cite web |date=January 6, 2023 |title=Wikimedia Foundation condamnée à communiquer des données d'identification |language=fr |trans-title=Wikimedia Foundation ordered to disclose identifying data |url=https://www.legalis.net/actualite/wikimedia-condamnee-a-communiquer-des-donnees-didentification/ |access-date=2024-10-27 |website=Legalis |archive-date=September 23, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240923134005/https://www.legalis.net/actualite/wikimedia-condamnee-a-communiquer-des-donnees-didentification/ |url-status=live }} The WMF refused to hand over information regarding the user, resulting in repeated fines by the court.{{Cite web |last=De Roquefeuil |first=Me Pierre |date=January 6, 2023 |title=Blog: La fin des farceurs sur Wikipedia ? |trans-title=Blog: The end of pranksters on Wikipedia? |url=https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/pierre-de-roquefeuil/article-45945-la-fin-des-farceurs-sur-wikipedia.html |access-date=2024-10-27 |website=Avocat.fr |language=fr |archive-date=January 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230106182702/https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/pierre-de-roquefeuil/article-45945-la-fin-des-farceurs-sur-wikipedia.html |url-status=live }}

{{See also|Theodore Katsanevas#Wikipedia lawsuit}}

The Wikimedia Foundation ultimately prevailed in a controversy in Germany over using the full name of a deceased hacker known as Tron. On 14 December 2005, his parents obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the wikipedia.org domain.{{cite web|url=https://www.telepolis.de/features/Hacker-leben-nicht-gefaehrlich-3404414.html |work=Telepolis |title=Hacker leben nicht gefährlich |language=de |trans-title=Hackers don't live dangerously |first=Burkhard |last=Schröder |date=2006-01-10}} On 9 February 2006, the injunction against Wikimedia Deutschland was overturned.{{cite news |url=http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69391 |work=Heise Online |title=Court overturns temporary restraining order against Wikimedia Deutschland |language=en |first1=Torsten |last1=Kleinz |first2=Robert W. |last2=Smith |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070208212530/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69391 |archive-date=2007-02-08 |date=2006-02-09}} The plaintiffs appealed to the Berlin state court, but were turned down in May 2006.{{cite news |url=https://www.golem.de/0605/45286.html |work=Golem.de |title=Urteil: Wikipedia darf Tron weiter beim Namen nennen |language=de |trans-title=Judgment: Wikipedia allowed to name Tron by name again |first=Jens |last=Ihlenfeld |date=2006-05-12 |archive-date=December 31, 2023 |access-date=October 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231151124/https://www.golem.de/0605/45286.html |url-status=live }}

John Seigenthaler, an American writer and journalist, contacted Wikipedia in 2005 after his article was edited to incorrectly state that he had been thought for a brief time to be involved in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and of Bobby Kennedy. The content was present in the article for four months.{{cite web |date=December 12, 2005 |website=FindLaw |first=Anita |last=Ramasastry |title=Is an Online Encyclopedia, Such as Wikipedia, Immune From Libel Suits? |url=https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/is-an-online-encyclopedia-such-as-wikipedia-immune-from-libel-suits.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130127024343/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html |archive-date=January 27, 2013 |access-date=November 30, 2024}} Seigenthaler called Wikipedia a "flawed and irresponsible research tool" and criticized the Communications Decency Act's protection of Wikipedia, which is why the case was dropped.{{Cite web |date=2020-07-08 |first=Luke |last=Dormehl |title=If Section 230 Gets Killed, Wikipedia Will Die Along With It |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/section-230-wikipedia/ |access-date=2024-11-19 |website=Digital Trends |language=en}}

In 2007, three French nationals sued the Wikimedia Foundation when an article on Wikipedia described them as gay activists.{{cite web |date=November 2, 2007 |title=Wikipedia cleared of defamation |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1002559/wiki-cleared-defamation |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024153509/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1002559/wiki-cleared-defamation |archive-date=October 24, 2014 |access-date=April 15, 2013 |work=The Inquirer}}{{cite web |date=November 2, 2007 |title=Wikipedia cleared in French defamation case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-wikipedia-court-idUSL0280486220071102 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121221062222/http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/02/us-france-wikipedia-court-idUSL0280486220071102 |archive-date=December 21, 2012 |access-date=April 15, 2013 |work=Reuters}} A French court dismissed the defamation and privacy case, ruling that the Foundation was not legally responsible for information in Wikipedia articles. The judge ruled that a 2004 French law limited the Foundation's liability, and found that the content had already been removed. He found that the Foundation was not legally required to check the information on Wikipedia, and that "Web site hosts cannot be liable under civil law because of information stored on them if they do not in fact know of their illicit nature." He did not rule on whether the information was defamatory.

In January 2008, Barbara Bauer, a literary agent, sued the Wikimedia Foundation in New Jersey Superior Court for defamation.{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/07/wikipedia_eff_defamation_immunity_lawsuit/ |title=Wikipedia goes to court to defend defamation immunity |work=The Register |date=May 7, 2008 |access-date=April 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801072012/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/07/wikipedia_eff_defamation_immunity_lawsuit/ |archive-date=August 1, 2013 |url-status=live}}{{cite web |last=Beaumont |first=Claudine |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1946275/Wikipedia-fights-defamation-lawsuit.html |title=Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit |publisher=Telegraph |date=May 11, 2008 |access-date=April 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121109112524/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1946275/Wikipedia-fights-defamation-lawsuit.html |archive-date=November 9, 2012 |url-status=live}} She claimed that a Wikipedia entry branded her the "dumbest" literary agent. The case was dismissed because of the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.{{cite web|url=http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bauer-v-wikimedia|title=Bauer v. Wikimedia|publisher=Citizen Media Law Project|date=May 2, 2008|access-date=December 21, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100713053150/http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bauer-v-wikimedia|archive-date=July 13, 2010|url-status=live}}

In 2008, professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller, who felt that he was defamed on Wikipedia, said that he did not sue Wikipedia because he was told that his suit would not prevail, in light of Section 230.{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1946275/Wikipedia-fights-defamation-lawsuit.html |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |title=Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit |first=Claudine |last=Beaumont |date=May 11, 2008 |access-date=September 6, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121109112524/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1946275/Wikipedia-fights-defamation-lawsuit.html |archive-date=November 9, 2012 |url-status=live}} He sued the Miami firm from whose computers the edits were made, but later dropped the case.{{cite web |url=http://www.dmlp.org/threats/zoeller-v-josef-silny-associates |title=Zoeller v. Josef Silny & Associates |publisher=Digital Media Law Project |access-date=December 26, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226235316/http://www.dmlp.org/threats/zoeller-v-josef-silny-associates |archive-date=December 26, 2017 |url-status=live}}

File:Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg

In July 2010, the FBI sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding that it cease and desist from using its seal on Wikipedia.{{cite web |date=July 22, 2010 |title=Letter from FBI to Wikimedia |url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140818194345/http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf |archive-date=August 18, 2014 |access-date=August 16, 2012}} The FBI claimed that such practice was illegal and threatened to sue. In reply, Wikimedia counsel Mike Godwin sent a letter to the FBI claiming that Wikipedia was not in the wrong when it displayed the FBI seal on its website.{{cite web |date=July 30, 2010 |title=Letter from Wikimedia to FBI |url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140818194343/http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf |archive-date=August 18, 2014 |access-date=August 16, 2012 |via=The New York Times}} He defended Wikipedia's actions and refused to remove the seal.{{cite news |last=Schwartz |first=John |date=August 2, 2010 |title=F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=1 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141206234156/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?_r=2& |archive-date=December 6, 2014 |access-date=August 16, 2012 |newspaper=The New York Times}}{{Update needed|date=November 2024}}

In June 2014, Yank Barry filed a defamation lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors.{{cite web |last=Simcoe |first=Luke |date=25 June 2014 |title=Canadian businessman sues Wikipedia editors for defamation |url=http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1077668/canadian-businessman-sues-wikipedia-editors-for-defamation/ |website=Metronews |access-date=February 12, 2020 |archive-date=June 27, 2014 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140627113416/http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1077668/canadian-businessman-sues-wikipedia-editors-for-defamation/ |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |last=Alfonso |first=Fernando III |date=24 June 2014 |title=Wikipedia editors hit with $10 million defamation lawsuit |url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-lawsuit-yank-barry-10-million/ |access-date=14 May 2019 |work=The Daily Dot |archive-date=June 25, 2014 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140625002748/http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-lawsuit-yank-barry-10-million/ |url-status=live }} Updated 11 December 2015. He withdrew the suit in July 2014.{{cite web |date=July 17, 2014 |title=Philanthropist Yank Barry prepares to bolster lawsuit against Wikipedia editors, strategically withdraws first complaint |url=http://www.prnewschannel.com/2014/07/17/philanthropist-yank-barry-prepares-to-bolster-lawsuit-against-wikipedia-editors-strategically-withdraws-first-complaint/ |access-date=2 August 2014 |publisher=PRNews Channel |archive-date=July 27, 2014 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140727001436/http://www.prnewschannel.com/2014/07/17/philanthropist-yank-barry-prepares-to-bolster-lawsuit-against-wikipedia-editors-strategically-withdraws-first-complaint/ |url-status=live }}{{Additional citation needed|date=November 2024}}{{Further explanation needed|date=November 2024}}

In 2016, Sorin Cerin sued the administrators of Romanian Wikipedia in Romanian courts, claiming "patent falsities".{{cite web |date=15 September 2016 |title=Wikipedia România, în mijlocul unui proces |url=https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/sci-tech/gadget/wikipedia-romania-in-mijlocul-unui-proces-567129 |access-date=8 February 2022 |website=Digi24 |language=ro |archive-date=February 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220208004118/https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/sci-tech/gadget/wikipedia-romania-in-mijlocul-unui-proces-567129 |url-status=live }} The trial ended in 2021; the plaintiff lost the case.{{cite web |title=Detalii dosar 6954/2/2018 |url=https://www.scj.ro/1094/Detalii-dosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=200000000366473 |access-date=8 February 2022 |location=Romania |publisher=High Court of Cassation and Justice |language=ro |archive-date=February 7, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220207220914/https://www.scj.ro/1094/detalii-dosar?customQuery[0].Key=id&customQuery[0].Value=200000000366473 |url-status=live }}

File:October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf

In July 2024, the Indian news agency Asian News International sued for what it deemed defamatory allegations in the English Wikipedia article about the company. The Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had been accused of having served as a "propaganda tool" for the incumbent Indian government.{{Cite web |date=2024-07-10 |title=Why has ANI slapped a defamation case against Wikipedia? |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/ |access-date=2024-12-18 |website=The Indian Express |language=en |archive-date=September 6, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240906040401/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-has-ani-slapped-a-defamation-case-against-wikipedia-9443391/ |url-status=live }} The court has asked that WMF reveal the identities of the editors who conducted the controversial edits, and WMF has agreed to comply.{{Cite web |date=2024-11-03 |title=Wikipedia embroiled in legal battle in India |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html |access-date=2024-12-18 |website=Voice of America |language=en |archive-date=November 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241110041949/https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Bhavini |date=2024-11-14 |title=Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users in ANI's defamation suit |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-issues-summons-wikipedia-users-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2024-12-18 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}} Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation opened in Delhi High Court in August 2024{{cite news |last1=Deep |first1=Aroon |date=12 July 2024 |title=Content determined by volunteer editors, says Wikipedia parent |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/wikipedia-parent-responds-ani-defamation-suit-says-content-by-volunteer-editors/article68395472.ece |access-date=13 July 2024 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713041958/https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/wikipedia-parent-responds-ani-defamation-suit-says-content-by-volunteer-editors/article68395472.ece |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Hunt |first1=Pete |date=23 September 2024 |title=Will Indian Courts Tame Wikipedia? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/ |access-date=22 September 2024 |work=The Diplomat |archive-date=September 22, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240922095101/https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/ |url-status=live }} with WMF being cited for contempt of court in September and ordered back to court in October.{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=2024-09-05 |title=Delhi High Court cautions Wikipedia for non-compliance of order |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-high-court-cautions-wikipedia-for-non-compliance-of-order/article68610761.ece |access-date=2024-10-10 |work=The Hindu |language=en-IN |issn=0971-751X |archive-date=September 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240914011253/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-high-court-cautions-wikipedia-for-non-compliance-of-order/article68610761.ece |url-status=live }} On October 21, 2024, the article page regarding the ongoing court case (though not the article about ANI itself) was blanked and access to editing blocked by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the ongoing lawsuit.{{cite web |author=Deep |first=Aroon |date=October 21, 2024 |title=Wikipedia suspends page on the ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikimedia Foundation |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-suspends-access-to-ani-defamation-case-page-following-delhi-hc-order/article68778075.ece |access-date=October 21, 2024 |website=The Hindu}}{{cite web |title=ANI v Wikimedia Foundation |url=https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_16_2024_ANI_v_Wikimedia_order.pdf |website=Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki |language=en}} A number of authors have expressed concern about the case threatening freedom of speech in India.{{Cite web |last=Bhalla |first=Vineet |date=2024-10-19 |title=Why Delhi HC is angry with Wikipedia for calling ANI a 'government propaganda tool' |url=https://scroll.in/article/1074580/why-delhi-hc-is-angry-with-wikipedia-for-calling-ani-a-government-propaganda-tool |access-date=2024-10-27 |website=Scroll.in |language=en}}{{Cite web |date=2024-09-17 |title=Why the case against Wikipedia in India is a challenge to freedom of speech and information |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-case-wikipedia-india-challenge-freedom-speech-information-9572234/ |access-date=2024-10-27 |website=The Indian Express |language=en |archive-date=September 19, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240919042704/https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/why-case-wikipedia-india-challenge-freedom-speech-information-9572234/ |url-status=live }} On 28{{nbsp}}October, the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the court's request to disclose the identifying information of online users involved in editing the ANI page.{{Cite web |last=Rahman |first=Shaikh Azizur |date=2024-11-03 |title=Wikipedia embroiled in legal battle in India |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241110041949/https://www.voanews.com/a/wikipedia-embroiled-in-legal-battle-in-india/7849693.html |archive-date=10 November 2024 |access-date=2024-11-10 |website=Voice of America |language=en}} An arrangement was reached in the High Court on 11{{nbsp}}November to have the foundation serving the summons papers to the involved users as an intermediary while disclosing the email identities of the users under sealed cover to the judge, which would still protect the privacy of the individuals for the time being.{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Bhavini |date=2024-11-11 |title=Delhi High Court allows Wikipedia to serve summons on users in ANI's defamation suit |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-allows-wikipedia-serve-summons-users-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2024-11-19 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Bhavini |date=2024-11-14 |title=Delhi High Court issues summons to Wikipedia users in ANI's defamation suit |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-issues-summons-wikipedia-users-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2024-11-19 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news |language=en}} On 17{{nbsp}}March 2025, a two-judge bench, consisting of A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea filed by WMF against the article takedown order by the Delhi High Court. It took note of the fact that matter involved freedom of media and questioned the High Court on why it was "so touchy" about the subject.{{cite web |last=Jamal |first=Ummar |date=17 March 2025 |title=Courts have to be tolerant: Supreme Court on Delhi HC's takedown order against Wikipedia in ANI case |url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/courts-have-to-tolerant-supreme-court-delhi-hc-takedown-order-against-wikipedia-ani-case |access-date=17 March 2025 |website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news}} The panel questioned the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that judges and courts should be more tolerant of criticism; requiring the removal of content because of criticism may not be correct. At the same time, the judge also stated that the order was about press freedom, noting that it was "ironic" that ANI, an organization that relied on press freedom, had effectively censored content on Wikipedia.{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=T. N. M. |date=2025-03-18 |title=SC slams Delhi HC order directing Wikipedia to remove ANI defamation case page |url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/sc-slams-delhi-hc-order-directing-wikipedia-to-remove-ani-defamation-case-page |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=The News Minute |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Desk |first=Online |date=2025-03-17 |title=Supreme Court questions legality of Delhi HC's order directing removal of Wikipedia page on ANI defamation suit |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Mar/17/supreme-court-questions-legality-of-delhi-hcs-order-directing-removal-of-wikipedia-page-on-ani-defamation-suit |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=The New Indian Express |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Sharma |first=Aditya |date=2025-03-19 |title=ANI vs. Wikipedia Legal Battle Explained |url=https://thephilox.com/ani-vs-wikipedia-legal-battle-explained/ |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=thephilox.com |language=en-US}} On 2{{nbsp}}April, the Delhi High Court ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content, remove the article's protected status, and "restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency".{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2025-04-02 |title=Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Allegedly Defamatory Description Of ANI On Its Wikipedia Page |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-defamatory-wikipedia-page-removal-288188 |access-date=2025-04-02 |website=Live Law |language=en}}

In 2024, Tsai Eng-meng brought a civil lawsuit against Wikimedia Taiwan chapter after editors on Chinese Wikipedia reverted his edits relating to content that reflected his pro-China stance on the biographical article about himself. Tsai believed that the content injured his reputation and personality rights, and filed the lawsuit to compel Wikimedia Taiwan to allow him to edit the article. Wikimedia Taiwan rebutted that they do not operate and administrate Chinese Wikipedia; Tsai was reverted by the Chinese Wikipedia administrators who considered his edits disruptive; he was free to edit in the first place and was not prevented by Wikimedia Taiwan from editing. The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2024 after the court found that Wikimedia Taiwan had no control over Chinese Wikipedia and also did not prevent Tsai from editing. The case is still on appeal {{as of|2024|post=.|lc=y}}{{Cite news |date=3 September 2024 |title=蔡衍明不爽被指「親中」 狀告維基百科協會吞敗 |url=https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/4788464 |url-status=live |work=Liberty Times |language=zh-tw |access-date=4 September 2024 |archive-date=3 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240903150109/https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/4788464 }}{{Cite web |last=聯合新聞網 |title=維基百科寫他「向中國共產黨示好」 蔡衍明提告協會結果曝光 |url=https://udn.com/news/story/7321/8203149 |access-date=2024-09-04 |website=United Daily News |language=zh-Hant-TW |archive-date=3 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240903052656/https://udn.com/news/story/7321/8203149 |url-status=live }}

In the United Kingdom, the Wikimedia Foundation initiated a legal challenge regarding Wikipedia's categorisation under the Online Safety Act 2023. The law, which was designed to combat trolling, requires sufficiently large websites to collect identifying information about its user identities or to provide functionality that enable users to block other users.{{Cite news |last=Milmo |first=Dan |date=2025-05-08 |title=Wikipedia challenging UK law it says exposes it to ‘manipulation and vandalism’ |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/08/wikipedia-challenging-uk-law-it-says-exposes-it-to-manipulation-and-vandalism |url-status=live |access-date=2025-05-12 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

• List of litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Strategic lawsuit against public participation
• Texas Instruments signing key controversy

{{reflist|30em}}

{{Wikimedia Foundation}}

WikiMedia Foundation

Category:Wikipedia content