Now here's something you don't see every day: The Electronic Frontier Foundation -- that stalwart defender of all rights digital -- is urging a California court not to dismiss a frivolous lawsuit.

Why?

So that the cable TV host who dragged the matter into court will get a taste of California's no-nonsense law designed to discourage legal bullying of online commenters, instead of letting her scurry off to a more plaintiff-friendly arena, which in this case would be the Illinois legal system.

MORE: Freedom of speech vs. monomaniacs and spammers

The plaintiff is Corri McFadden, host of a cable TV show about fashion called "House of Consignment," which I've never watched and had not heard of before last week. McFadden sued a website called Purseblog.com in a California federal court after a commenter on that site accused McFadden's designer-goods company, eDrop-Off, of undermining the fairness of its eBay auctions through the use of "shill bidding," which means fake bidding by the auction house intended to drive up prices.

While I use eBay no more often than I watch fashion shows on TV, it became quickly clear from reading discussions about this case that allegations of "shill bidding" online are roughly equivalent to expressions of shock over gambling at Rick's Café. In other words, whether real or unfounded, such suspicions are so commonplace as to be scarcely noteworthy, never mind the foundation of a legitimate libel complaint.

Moreover, Purseblog.com didn't accuse McFadden's company of shill bidding; that was the opinion of one of that site's users. Federal law provides broad protection to the hosts of online forums against legal liability for the views expressed by third-party contributors. Were that not the case, you might not be able to leave a nasty comment on this column because few websites would be willing to accept the risk of getting sued over every ill-received point of view.

California goes a step further with its law designed to discourage so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuits. In essence, it evens the playing field (somewhat) by allowing the target of a frivolous lawsuit to recoup the costs of mounting a defense from the deep-pocketed bully.

None of which can stop a determined plaintiff from filing a lawsuit, of course.

In this case, after the court denied McFadden a temporary restraining order, her attorneys apparently accepted the obvious -- that they had no case -- and asked that their complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Such an outcome, not coincidentally, would allow McFadden the opportunity to hound Purseblog.com once again through a separate suit filed in Illinois.

That's where the EFF stepped in and said, "Hey, your honor, do the right thing here and please don't dismiss this ridiculous lawsuit."

"This is a classic SLAPP suit -- strategic litigation against public participation -- and McFadden should have to face California's tough anti-SLAPP law, which lets defendants move to strike frivolous lawsuits and recover costs and fees if they win," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann in a press release. "The plaintiffs set the stage by choosing to file their suit in California. The court should finish the case there as well, protecting Purseblog.com's speech rights by applying California law."

Throw the book at her, California. Heck, hit her with a designer handbag.

Have a tale of shill bidding you'd like to share? The address is buzz@nww.com.