St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa has officially dismissed his lawsuit over a fake profile on Twitter as part of a settlement in which the social media website did not have to pay him anything.

A settlement of the case -– the first to be filed by a celebrity against Twitter –- was first reported in early June, with La Russa saying Twitter had agreed to pay his legal fees and make a donation to his Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF).

Twitter responded with a statement in which it said, “Twitter has not settled, nor do we plan to settle or pay” and described the suit as “an unnecessary waste of judicial resources bordering on frivolous.”

But a court document filed June 26 shows the parties have now reached a settlement. Each party will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees, it says, and “No payment was made by Twitter to La Russa in exchange for dismissal.”

The document does not say whether anything was paid to ARF and attorneys involved in the case did not respond to requests for comment.

La Russa alleged in his complaint that Twitter was liable under trademark law for the unauthorized use of his name in the phony profile. He also said postings on the page -- one of which referred to drunk driving incidents involving the Cardinals -- were “derogatory” and “damaging” to his trademark rights.

Even by framing his case as trademark infringement, La Russa probably could not have pierced Twitter's shield under the Communications Decency Act, which broadly protects internet service providers from liability for content posted by third parties.

But the case did inspire Twitter to start experimenting with software that verifies whether a celebrity page is legitimate.

In another Twitter imposter case, a Farmington Hills, Mich., public relations agency has taken control over a page in its name after Twitter provided information showing the account was registered to another PR firm in suburban Detroit.

Tanner Friedman had filed a cybersquatting suit which named only a John Doe who had assumed the Twitter profile “tannerfriedman” as a defendant. “It wouldn't have done us any good to sue Twitter,” co-founder Matt Friedman explained. “Only individual posters are responsible for their actions.”

Twitter turned over the account information after a judge granted Tanner Friedman's request for a subpoena “to determine the true identity of the Defendant.” The records showed the last login Internet address of the account was registered to Marx Layne Communications, where Friedman and partner Don Tanner both formerly worked.

Marx Layne's managing partner has denied having anything to do with setting up the account.

By Matthew Heller
On Point

Victoria's Secret appears to have developed a double-D sized products liability problem. With the addition of a case filed March 6 in Louisiana, at least 11 women have sued the company over the past 15 months over injuries that allegedly resulted from defectively manufactured undergarments (see link below).

Five of the cases are class-action variations on the theme that some "chemical, toxin, or allergen" in Victoria's Secret products is causing women to break out in a rash. A plaintiff in Cleveland, Ohio, federal court dismissed her case, but her attorney is representing another plaintiff in an identical Cleveland state court case.

A group of plaintiffs' lawyers has petitioned to consolidate four suits filed in federal court, saying they are prepared to file more than 600 other cases if the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation approves the consolidation.

The most bizarre case -- that of Macrida Patterson, who says a decorative metallic piece flew off her Sexy Little Thing thong and struck her in the eye while she was changing for work -- is set for trial June 5 in Los Angeles.

UNSAFE UNDIES?

Has the legal tide turned on same-sex marriage? After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld same-sex marriage in November 2003, gay rights activists suffered a losing streak in courts from Washington state to Maryland. But in 2008, California and Connecticut went the other way (see link below). And they have now been joined by Iowa, where the state Supreme Court found no "constitutionally adequate justification for excluding [same-sex couples] from the institution of civil marriage."

The issue is back on the docket in California, with a state Supreme Court ruling pending on whether Proposition 8 validly abolished the right to same-sex marriage established in In Re Marriage Cases.

SAME-SEX MILESTONES