Additionally, he tried to blame Rajala for another woman\u2019s reply on the thread, which linked to a mug shot of a convicted rapist. Despite the mug shot link displaying another man\u2019s name and photo, D\u2019Ambrosio claimed he had been defamed and had \u201csuffered emotional distress, emotional loss, loss of professional opportunities, and damage to his reputation and relationships.\u201d<\/p>\n
His goal, Hamilton\u2019s opinion noted, was to sue \u201canyone remotely associated with those posts for all possible, imaginable claims, including the woman who dated him and her parents, women commenting on posts, the operators of the Facebook group, and Facebook itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
In his blog, Trent acknowledged that these Facebook groups \u201cwere ostensibly created to help women navigate dating safely,\u201d but he claimed that some women abuse the groups to instead trigger harassment campaigns by accusing innocent men of spreading sexually transmitted infections or forcing women to having abortions.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re facilitating having people contact their bosses, their employers, to take the harm even further,\u201d Trent alleged.<\/p>\n
Importantly, D\u2019Ambrosio failed to allege any concrete harm caused by the post, and there is no evidence that the post led to improper contact in the real world.<\/p>\n
He also never argued that anything that the women said about him was false. Extremely late in the game, his lawyers tried to save his case by arguing that it was possible that the screenshot Rajala shared was doctored. But the panel rejected that argument since D\u2019Ambrosio had ample opportunity to dispute the text\u2019s authenticity earlier in the litigation, and never did it before oral arguments during the appeal.<\/p>\n