Judge Coleman ruled Tuesday that the website operatorsโ actions are not protected by the First Amendment because they were economically motivated, which falls under the U.S. Supreme Courtโs definition of commercial speech.
โAs pleaded, the use of the arrest photos and records in conjunction with what appear in the complaint as buttons linking to a removal service are reasonably construed as proposing a commercial transaction,โ she wrote.
But Coleman tossed out the plaintiffsโ unfair credit reporting and RICO claims because the sites are not selling their information to third parties, nor did they threaten the three men or try to extort them.
The judge ruled Thompson can pursue claims for violation of Floridaโs Right to Publicity Act and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Gabiola and Hammond can proceed on allegations of violation of the Illinois Mugshots Act, and Gabiola can also move ahead on his right-of-publicity claims.
Mugshots.com and Unpublisharrest.com remain up and running, despite having licenses revoked in Florida and Wyoming and lack of good standing in Delaware.
Both websites call themselves internet-based reputation management services.
In addition to the Illinois case, a similar lawsuit was
filed last month in Florida by an anonymous chiropractor who claims Mugshots.com is sullying his reputation by refusing to remove his arrest photo from its webpage.
That complaint was the first to be brought under a new Florida law that prohibits mug shot publishers from charging fees for removing unflattering arrest photos from their websites.
