Demand Letters for Online Defamation and Harassment: When to Write, When to Ignore, When to Sue

Someone is posting lies about you online. A former business partner started a blog accusing you of fraud. An ex-employee created a Twitter account devoted to “exposing” your company with false allegations of discrimination and wage theft. A disgruntled customer is posting one-star reviews on every platform claiming you scammed them, when in reality they violated your refund policy. Or perhaps the situation is darker: someone is publishing your home address alongside inflammatory accusations, sending hundreds of threatening messages, or posting intimate images without your consent.

Your first instinct may be to have an attorney send a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter demanding the content come down immediately and threatening a lawsuit. But online defamation and harassment cases present unique strategic challenges that make demand letters far more complicated than traditional defamation disputes. The platforms hosting the content are largely immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The speaker may be anonymous, judgment-proof, mentally unstable, or located overseas. The content may straddle the line between false statements of fact and protected opinion. And critically, an aggressive legal letter may trigger the Streisand effect, drawing far more attention to the content than it would have received organically, or escalate harassment from someone who is already obsessed and dangerous.

This article explains the legal framework for online defamation and harassment, the strategic considerations in deciding whether to send a demand letter or pursue other remedies, the serious risks of overplaying your hand through improper threats, and the alternative paths when a demand letter is counterproductive or insufficient. The goal is to help you understand when a demand letter is the right tool and when you need restraining orders, platform reporting, or simply strategic silence.

Understanding What Online Defamation Actually Is

Before deciding whether to send a demand letter, you need to understand whether you actually have a viable defamation claim. Many people believe they have been defamed when legally they have not, and sending demand letters based on weak claims exposes you to anti-SLAPP sanctions and makes you look like you are trying to chill legitimate speech.

The Core Elements of Defamation

Defamation law in the United States requires proof of several elements, and the absence of any one element means you do not have a claim. Under California law, which is representative of most states, defamation consists of libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation). For online content, you are almost always dealing with libel because the statements are in written or recorded form.

To prove defamation, you must show that someone made a false statement of fact about you, that the statement was communicated to at least one third party, that the statement harmed your reputation, and that the statement was made with at least negligence (or actual malice if you are a public figure). Each of these elements creates potential defenses that make many online statements non-actionable even if they feel harmful.

The statement must be one of fact, not opinion. This is where most online defamation claims fail. Calling someone a “scammer,” “fraud,” or “terrible person” can be actionable if it implies undisclosed facts (such as that you committed specific fraudulent acts), but it may also be protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole depending on context. Courts distinguish between statements that can be proven true or false and statements that reflect subjective judgments.

If someone writes “In my opinion, this company’s return policy is a scam because they find excuses not to honor it,” that statement mixes opinion (“scam”) with an implied factual assertion (that the company does not honor its policy). The implied fact is actionable if false. But if someone writes “This company is horrible and I regret doing business with them,” that is pure opinion based on the speaker’s subjective experience and is not defamatory even if it hurts your business.

The statement must be false. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If someone posts that you were convicted of fraud, and you actually were convicted of fraud, you have no claim no matter how much the post damages your reputation. This seems obvious, but many people believe they have defamation claims based on statements that are technically true but presented in an unflattering way. Defamation law does not protect you from truthful information being shared, even if that information is embarrassing or harmful to your business.

The statement must be unprivileged. Certain contexts create privileges that protect statements even if they are false and defamatory. The most important privilege in online defamation is the litigation privilege, which protects statements made in judicial proceedings or in serious contemplation of litigation. If someone accuses you of fraud in a court filing or in a letter to their attorney discussing potential litigation, that statement is privileged and you cannot sue for defamation even if it is false.

This privilege is important when you are considering your own demand letters. If you send a letter to someone accusing them of defaming you, and they sue you for defamation based on statements in your letter, your letter will likely be protected by litigation privilege if it was written in good-faith contemplation of a defamation suit. But the privilege protects them too: if they accuse you of wrongdoing in communications with their lawyer or in court filings, you cannot sue them for those accusations.

Public Figures and Actual Malice

If you are a public figure or a public official, the First Amendment requires you to prove actual malice: that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. This is an extremely high burden. Negligence is not enough. Even gross negligence is not enough. You must show that the defendant either had subjective awareness that the statement was probably false or entertained serious doubts about its truth.

Public figures include elected officials, celebrities, and people who have thrust themselves into public controversies. Limited-purpose public figures are people who have voluntarily injected themselves into particular public debates. If you are a CEO who regularly gives media interviews, posts extensively on social media about your company or industry, or has become a known figure in your field, you may be deemed a public figure for purposes of statements about your business or professional activities.

The practical implication is that if you are a public figure, sending a defamation demand letter is often pointless unless you have evidence that the defendant knew the statements were false. Mere negligence or failure to verify facts is not actionable, which means many false statements about public figures cannot be remedied through defamation law.

Statutes of Limitations and the Single Publication Rule

Defamation claims must be brought within the statute of limitations, which varies by state but is typically one to three years. In California, the statute of limitations for libel and slander is one year from the date of publication. This short limitations period means that if someone defamed you more than a year ago and you have not yet sued, your claim may be time-barred.

The single publication rule provides that the statute of limitations runs from the date of the first publication, not from each subsequent view, share, or repost. If someone posted a defamatory blog entry two years ago that is still online and still generating traffic, your claim is likely barred even though people are still reading it today. There are exceptions for substantial republications (such as when new material is added or when the content is deliberately republished to a new audience), but courts construe these exceptions narrowly.

This timing issue affects demand letter strategy. If the defamatory content was published more than a year ago (in California) or more than the applicable limitations period in your jurisdiction, a demand letter threatening a lawsuit is an empty threat because you can no longer sue. The better approach in such cases is to focus on platform removal requests and rebuilding your online reputation rather than legal threats.

When Online Content Crosses From Defamation to Criminal Harassment

Not all harmful online content is defamation. When conduct escalates to threats, stalking, doxxing, or distribution of intimate images, you may be dealing with criminal harassment that requires different remedies than a civil defamation demand letter.

Cyberstalking and Criminal Threats

California Penal Code section 646.9 makes it a crime to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or harass another person and make a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family. Cyberstalking is stalking accomplished through electronic communications, including emails, social media messages, text messages, and posts that are directed at the victim or that the stalker knows the victim will see.

The key elements are repeated conduct, credible threats, and reasonable fear. A single angry message, while unpleasant, does not typically meet the statutory definition. But a pattern of messages over days or weeks, especially if they include statements about knowing where you live or work, references to your family members, or explicit or implied threats of violence, can constitute cyberstalking.

Penal Code section 653.2 addresses cyber harassment more broadly, criminalizing electronic communications that, with intent to place a person in reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of their family, distribute personal identifying information or send harassing messages likely to incite unwanted contact, injury, or harassment by third parties. This statute specifically addresses doxxing: publishing someone’s home address, phone number, workplace, or other identifying information alongside inflammatory content designed to encourage others to harass or threaten the target.

When Demand Letters Escalate Rather Than Resolve

In cases involving cyberstalking, obsessive harassment, or threats, sending a demand letter can be actively dangerous. Harassers who are fixated on their target often interpret any attention, including legal threats, as validation that they are having an impact. The letter can provide new information (such as your attorney’s name and contact information) that becomes part of the harassment pattern. It can also trigger escalation, with the harasser ramping up their conduct in response to what they perceive as an attempt to silence them.

If someone is sending you repeated threatening messages, posting about you obsessively, publishing your personal information with hostile framing, or otherwise engaging in conduct that suggests mental instability or dangerous fixation, a civil demand letter is not the appropriate first step. The appropriate responses are documentation for law enforcement, filing for a civil harassment restraining order, and making reports to platforms. Engaging directly with the harasser, even through an attorney, can make the situation worse.

Image-Based Sexual Abuse and Revenge Porn

Most states, including California, have criminal statutes prohibiting nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, commonly called revenge porn. These statutes typically criminalize intentionally distributing a photograph or recording of an intimate body part or sexual activity of an identifiable person when the person distributed the image with knowledge that the depicted person has not consented to the distribution and the distribution causes the depicted person to suffer emotional distress.

When someone threatens to post or actually posts intimate images without consent, the immediate priorities are removal and safety, not negotiation. Sending a demand letter to someone who has already demonstrated willingness to violate your privacy and dignity by distributing intimate images may simply provide them with more opportunities to escalate. The better approach is typically immediate platform reporting (most platforms have specific processes for nonconsensual intimate images), law enforcement reports, and potentially a civil harassment restraining order or a civil lawsuit seeking emergency injunctive relief.

California’s Attorney General provides resources specifically for victims of cyber exploitation, including a 24-hour crisis helpline and connections to the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which offers support and legal referrals. These resources should be your first call in image-based abuse cases, not your attorney asking you what to put in a demand letter.

The Section 230 Problem: Why You Usually Cannot Sue the Platform

Understanding Section 230 immunity is critical for setting realistic expectations about what legal action can accomplish in online defamation cases.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In practical terms, this means websites, social media platforms, forums, review sites, and other online services are generally immune from liability for defamatory content posted by their users.

This immunity is broad and has been upheld consistently by federal courts. If someone posts lies about you on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Yelp, or Google Reviews, you cannot sue the platform for defamation even though they are hosting and distributing the content. Your only defamation claim is against the individual who posted the content, not the platform that made it visible to the world.

Section 230 does not, however, prevent you from asking platforms to remove content that violates their terms of service. Most platforms prohibit harassment, threats, doxxing, and nonconsensual intimate images in their community guidelines. While you cannot force them to remove content through defamation liability, you can report content as violating their rules and request removal. Success rates vary by platform and by the type of content, but platform reporting is often more effective and faster than legal threats when the content clearly violates the platform’s own policies.

This is why demand letters in online defamation cases must be directed at the person who posted the content, not at the platform hosting it. Sending a demand letter to Facebook or Twitter threatening to sue them for defamation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Section 230 and wastes time and credibility. If you want to involve the platform, the right approach is a terms-of-service-based removal request, not a legal threat.

Pre-Litigation Privilege, Anti-SLAPP, and How Demand Letters Can Backfire Legally

Even when you have a legitimate defamation claim, sending a demand letter carries legal risks that you need to understand before deciding to send one.

Litigation Privilege Protects Pre-Litigation Communications

California Civil Code section 47(b) creates a litigation privilege that protects communications made in judicial proceedings and communications made in serious, good-faith contemplation of litigation that are logically related to the anticipated action. This privilege is absolute, meaning it bars claims for defamation, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic relations, and most other torts arising from the privileged communication.

The privilege protects you when you send a defamation demand letter: if the person you send it to tries to sue you for defamation or interference based on statements in your letter, your letter is likely privileged as long as it was sent in good-faith contemplation of a defamation suit. But the privilege also protects them. If your defamation claim is based on statements they made in communications with their attorney, in anticipation of litigation with you or someone else, or in court filings or other judicial proceedings, those statements are privileged and you cannot sue for them even if they are false and harmful.

This creates a strategic consideration: if the defamatory statements were made in a context that might be privileged, such as in the defendant’s communications with a lawyer or as part of a dispute that was heading toward litigation, your claim may fail on privilege grounds even if the statements are clearly false and defamatory. Sending a demand letter in such a case wastes resources and establishes that you either do not understand the privilege or are trying to leverage the cost of litigation to extract a settlement even though you cannot win.

Anti-SLAPP Motions and the Risk of Early Dismissal

California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, provides a procedural mechanism for early dismissal of lawsuits that target protected speech or petitioning activity. The statute applies to causes of action arising from acts in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue under consideration in an official proceeding.

If you sue someone for online defamation and the statements were made in connection with a public issue, the defendant can file an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint. To survive the motion, you must demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits, meaning you must produce admissible evidence supporting each element of your defamation claim. If you cannot meet this burden, the case is dismissed at an early stage and you must pay the defendant’s attorney fees.

Anti-SLAPP protection is particularly strong when the defamatory statements relate to your business practices, professional conduct, or other matters of public interest. Courts have held that consumer complaints, workplace allegations, reporting on business practices, and speech about companies or professionals are often protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. This means that even if the statements are false and harmful, you face significant procedural hurdles to getting your case to a jury.

The existence of anti-SLAPP protection should inform your demand letter strategy. If your defamation claim is weak on the merits or involves speech on a public issue, a demand letter threatening to sue may simply provoke the defendant to file for declaratory relief and bring an anti-SLAPP motion, forcing you into expensive litigation you are likely to lose. The letter establishes that you are willing to sue, which may be all the defendant needs to establish a justiciable controversy for purposes of a declaratory judgment action.

The Flatley Exception: When Demand Letters Become Extortion

While litigation privilege and anti-SLAPP generally protect pre-litigation demand letters, there is an important exception for letters that constitute criminal extortion. In Flatley v. Mauro, the California Supreme Court held that communications that amount to criminal extortion as a matter of law are not protected by anti-SLAPP even though they are nominally pre-litigation communications.

The case involved a lawyer who sent a letter to a prominent businessman threatening to publicize allegations that the businessman had sexually assaulted the lawyer’s client, to report the incident to multiple law enforcement agencies, and to report the businessman to immigration and tax authorities, unless the businessman paid a seven-figure settlement. The letter demanded money far in excess of any actual damages and conditioned the decision to pursue criminal and regulatory complaints on whether payment was made.

The California Supreme Court held that this letter constituted criminal extortion under Penal Code sections 518 and 519 because it threatened actions that would expose the businessman to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and sought to obtain property through wrongful use of fear. Because the letter was extortionate as a matter of law, it was not protected by anti-SLAPP and the businessman’s claims against the lawyer could proceed.

The lesson for online defamation demand letters is clear: you can threaten to file a civil defamation lawsuit if the defendant does not remove the content and potentially pay damages. You cannot threaten to report the defendant to police, regulatory agencies, professional licensing boards, immigration authorities, or their employer unless they pay you or comply with your demands. The line between a legitimate pre-litigation demand and criminal extortion is bright, and crossing it exposes you not only to civil liability but potentially to criminal prosecution.

Strategic Framework: When to Send a Demand Letter

Understanding when a demand letter is strategically sound requires analyzing the strength of your legal claim, the characteristics of the defendant, the nature of the harm, and your ultimate goals.

Scenarios Where Demand Letters Often Work

Demand letters are most effective when the person who posted the content is identifiable, solvent, rational, and has something to lose. This typically means current or former employees, business partners, competitors, customers, or contractors who posted content in the heat of a dispute but who are fundamentally reasonable people who will respond to legal pressure.

The statements should be clearly false factual assertions rather than opinion or hyperbole. If someone posted that your company failed to pay them for work performed when you actually paid them in full and have bank records proving it, that is a strong defamation case. If someone posted that your company “screwed them over” or provided “terrible service,” those are opinions or vague complaints that do not support defamation claims.

The statements should be causing tangible, documentable harm. If the defamatory content caused you to lose specific business opportunities, led clients to cancel contracts, resulted in deplatforming or loss of professional credentials, or caused other measurable damage, you can quantify the harm in your demand letter. Vague assertions that your reputation has been damaged are less compelling than specific examples of lost business with dollar amounts attached.

Your goal should be primarily removal, correction, or cessation of the defamatory statements rather than large monetary recovery. Demand letters work best when the defendant can comply without significant cost: take down the post, issue a correction, sign a statement agreeing not to make similar statements in the future. If your primary demand is a large cash payment, you are less likely to get voluntary compliance and more likely to provoke a fight.

Scenarios Where Demand Letters Usually Backfire

Demand letters are least effective and most likely to cause problems when the person who posted the content is anonymous, judgment-proof, mentally unstable, or operating from overseas. Anonymous posters can often avoid identification unless you are willing to pursue expensive and time-consuming subpoena procedures to unmask them. Even if you identify them, if they have no assets and no reputation to protect, legal threats carry no weight.

If the poster appears obsessed, unbalanced, or prone to escalation, any contact including a legal letter may feed their fixation and increase the volume and severity of their posts. In stalking and harassment cases, silence or restraining orders are often safer than engagement.

If the statements are a mix of fact and opinion, or if they are primarily opinion with only implied factual assertions, your defamation claim is weak and a demand letter mostly serves to draw attention to the content. The defendant may publicize your letter as evidence that you are trying to silence legitimate criticism, turning you into the story rather than the original content.

If the content is on fringe websites, forums, or social media corners with limited organic reach, a demand letter and potential lawsuit may trigger the Streisand effect: far more people will learn about the allegations because of your legal action than would have seen them otherwise. This is particularly true when the defendant has a large following or when the dispute involves matters that generate public interest, such as consumer protection, employment practices, or controversial business conduct.

The Calculus When You Are a Public Figure

If you are a public figure or limited-purpose public figure, the actual malice standard makes successful defamation claims extremely difficult. Unless you have evidence that the defendant knew the statements were false or had serious doubts about their truth, you are unlikely to prevail even if the statements are objectively false and harmful.

In this context, demand letters are often counterproductive. Sending legal threats when you are unlikely to win a lawsuit makes you appear litigious and thin-skinned. It also educates the defendant that they are having an impact, which may encourage them to continue. Public figures are often better served by ignoring false online content or responding publicly with corrections and evidence rather than with legal threats.

The exception is when you have clear evidence of actual malice, such as emails or messages showing the defendant knew the statements were false but posted them anyway, or evidence that the defendant fabricated documents or sources. In those cases, a demand letter can be effective because it puts the defendant on notice that you have proof of their knowing falsehood, which dramatically changes their litigation risk calculus.

Building Your Evidence Before You Act

Whether you ultimately send a demand letter, file suit, or pursue other remedies, you need to systematically document the defamatory content and its impact before taking any action.

Start by preserving the content itself. Take screenshots that show the full URL, the date and time, the username or account name of the poster, and any engagement metrics like views, shares, likes, or comments. If the content is a video, download it before it can be deleted. If it is a series of posts across multiple platforms, create a chronological log with links and screenshots for each instance.

Capture evidence that the statements are false. If someone claims you defrauded them, gather contracts, payment records, emails, and any other documentation showing that you performed your obligations and were paid or that the dispute arose from a legitimate disagreement about contract terms, not fraud. If someone claims you engaged in discriminatory conduct, gather evidence of your actual practices, policies, and the circumstances surrounding the complainant’s experience.

Document the harm the statements are causing. If clients or customers have mentioned the defamatory content, save those communications. If you lost specific business opportunities, document what opportunities you lost, when, and how much they were worth. If the content led to your removal from a platform, suspension of professional credentials, or other tangible consequences, document those as well.

Gather evidence of the reach and audience of the defamatory content. How many followers does the poster have? How many views, shares, or engagements did the specific posts receive? Is the content ranking in search results for your name or your business? This evidence establishes the extent of publication, which is relevant both to the strength of your claim and to the amount of damages you can seek.

If the poster has made other statements about the situation, save those too. Prior inconsistent statements, admissions that they are trying to harm your business, or evidence of malice or ill will can all strengthen your claim. Communications where the poster refuses to correct obvious errors or doubles down on false statements despite being shown contradictory evidence are particularly valuable.

Alternative Paths When Demand Letters Are Not the Answer

Many online defamation and harassment situations require remedies other than or in addition to demand letters.

Platform Reporting and Terms of Service Enforcement

Every major platform has community guidelines that prohibit various forms of harmful content: harassment, threats, doxxing, hate speech, nonconsensual intimate images, and in some cases false information. While Section 230 means you cannot sue the platform for hosting the content, platforms will remove content that violates their own rules.

Platform reporting processes vary, but most allow you to flag specific content for review. For best results, explain specifically which rule the content violates, provide evidence that the content is false or violates privacy, and include any context that makes the violation clear. Generic reports that simply say “this is defamatory” are less effective than reports that say “this post violates your prohibition on doxxing by publishing my home address” or “this user is engaged in targeted harassment as shown by these ten posts over the past week.”

Some platforms have expedited processes for particularly harmful content. Nonconsensual intimate images typically qualify for fast removal. Credible threats of violence should be reported not only to the platform but also to law enforcement. Impersonation (someone creating an account pretending to be you) usually gets faster action than general defamation claims.

Platform reporting is often more effective than legal threats because it is faster, does not require proving the elements of defamation, and avoids the risk that your legal action will draw more attention to the content. The main limitation is that platforms have their own priorities and timelines, and they may decline to remove content that you believe is harmful but that does not clearly violate their specific rules.

Civil Harassment Restraining Orders

California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 allows a person who has suffered harassment to obtain a civil harassment restraining order. Harassment is defined as unlawful violence, credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose.

Civil harassment restraining orders are particularly useful in online harassment cases because they can prohibit the harasser from contacting you through any means, including social media, email, and third-party intermediaries. The order can also prohibit the harasser from posting about you online. Violation of a restraining order is a criminal offense, which means the police can arrest the harasser for continued online harassment even if the harassment itself would not otherwise be criminal.

The process for obtaining a civil harassment restraining order involves filing a petition with the court, providing evidence of the harassment (your chronological log of posts and messages is critical here), and attending a hearing where both parties can present evidence. If the court grants the restraining order, it typically lasts for three to five years and can be renewed.

Restraining orders are often more appropriate than demand letters when the conduct includes threats, obsessive messaging, or patterns that suggest the person is not going to respond rationally to legal demands. The restraining order process also creates an official record and involves law enforcement in a way that can be protective if the harassment escalates.

Criminal Complaints and Law Enforcement

When online conduct crosses into criminal territory—cyberstalking, credible threats, distribution of intimate images, or cyber harassment that incites third-party violence—law enforcement involvement may be appropriate. The challenge is that many local police departments lack training and resources for online crimes, and officers may be dismissive of complaints about online content.

To increase the likelihood that law enforcement will take your complaint seriously, bring organized documentation. Provide a chronological log of all harassing communications with dates, times, and screenshots. Explain how the conduct meets the elements of the relevant criminal statute. Be specific about the impact on your safety: if you have changed your routines, installed security systems, or taken other protective measures because of reasonable fear created by the conduct, explain that.

For particularly serious cases involving interstate conduct, threats, or organized harassment, federal law enforcement (FBI) may have jurisdiction under federal cyberstalking statutes. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center accepts reports of cyber crimes, though the volume of complaints means that only the most serious cases receive investigation.

Drafting Effective Online Defamation Demand Letters

If you have determined that a demand letter is strategically appropriate, the structure and tone of the letter are critical to maximizing the chance of compliance while minimizing the risk of escalation or legal backlash.

Opening With Precision

Begin by identifying yourself or your client, the defamatory content with specificity, and the harm it is causing. For example: “I represent Jane Smith regarding false statements you posted on Twitter on March 15, 2025, in which you claimed that Ms. Smith defrauded you of $10,000. These statements are false, defamatory, and have caused Ms. Smith to lose business relationships and professional opportunities.”

This opening immediately establishes what content is at issue, why it is actionable, and that there are consequences. It also signals that you have documentation and are serious about the matter.

Presenting the Evidence of Falsity

The core of your letter should demonstrate that the statements are false and that you can prove they are false. This is where your documentation becomes critical. If the defendant claimed you did not pay them, attach payment records. If they claimed you committed fraud, explain what actually happened and provide evidence showing the claim is false.

Be specific about what is false. If a social media post contains ten sentences, identify which specific sentences are false factual assertions and which are opinion. Address the factual assertions with evidence. Do not waste space refuting opinions or insults that are not actionable.

Explaining the Legal Basis Without Overcomplicating

Include a brief explanation of why the statements are legally actionable. You do not need to provide a law school-level analysis, but you should cite the relevant defamation statute or common law elements and explain how the facts satisfy them. For example: “Under California law, defamation includes a false statement that injures another’s reputation. Your statement that Ms. Smith defrauded you is a factual assertion that is objectively false, as shown by the attached evidence. The statement was published to your 5,000 Twitter followers. It has harmed Ms. Smith’s business relationships and professional reputation.”

This brief legal summary shows you understand the law and have analyzed the claim, but it does not turn the letter into a legal treatise that the recipient will not read.

Making Clear, Achievable Demands

State exactly what you want the recipient to do. The demands should be specific and reasonable. For example: “We demand that you immediately remove the March 15 Twitter post, post a correction stating that your prior allegation was false and that you have no evidence Ms. Smith defrauded you, and agree in writing that you will not make similar false statements in the future.”

Avoid demands that are impossible to comply with or that go far beyond what a court would order. Do not demand that the recipient pay you $500,000, publicly apologize on video, turn over all their devices for forensic examination, and sign a lifetime gag order. Such demands make settlement impossible and make you look unreasonable.

If you are willing to accept alternatives, say so. “We are willing to discuss other forms of correction or retraction that achieve the goal of remedying the harm caused by the false statements.” This shows flexibility and increases the chance of a negotiated resolution.

Setting Reasonable Deadlines and Consequences

Provide a deadline for response that is reasonable given the complexity of the matter. Seven to fourteen days is typical for a straightforward defamation demand. If the matter is more complex or involves older content, a longer deadline may be appropriate.

State the consequences if the recipient does not comply. “If we do not receive your written agreement to the above by April 5, 2025, Ms. Smith will pursue all available legal remedies, including a lawsuit for defamation, injunctive relief, and recovery of damages and attorney fees.” This is a clear, lawful statement of intent to sue if the matter is not resolved.

Do not threaten to report the recipient to police, prosecutors, professional licensing boards, their employer, or immigration authorities. Do not threaten to “ruin their reputation” or “expose them publicly.” These threats can cross into extortion territory and undermine the litigation privilege that would otherwise protect your letter.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I do if the person defaming me online is anonymous?

Anonymous online defamation presents significant practical challenges. You cannot send a demand letter to someone whose identity you do not know, and even if you file a lawsuit, you will need to conduct discovery to unmask the anonymous poster through subpoenas to the platform hosting the content and potentially to internet service providers. This process is expensive, time-consuming, and often unsuccessful if the poster used privacy tools or is located overseas.

Before investing in unmasking efforts, evaluate whether the harm justifies the cost. If the anonymous poster has a small audience and limited reach, ignoring the content and focusing on building positive online presence may be more cost-effective than pursuing expensive discovery. If the harm is significant and the content is on a platform that is likely to comply with subpoenas, consultation with an attorney who has experience with John Doe defamation lawsuits can help you evaluate whether the unmasking process is likely to succeed. Some platforms will provide user information in response to subpoenas if you can show a prima facie case of defamation, while others will fight aggressively to protect user anonymity.

Can I sue for negative reviews that are false?

The analysis depends on whether the review contains false statements of fact or whether it is opinion based on the reviewer’s experience. A review that says “The product broke after two days” when the product actually functioned properly contains a false factual assertion. A review that says “terrible quality, waste of money, do not buy” is opinion and is not actionable even if you believe the opinion is unfair or based on unreasonable expectations.

Many negative reviews exist in a gray area where they combine factual assertions with opinions and where it is difficult to prove the factual assertions are false. If a restaurant reviewer says “waited 45 minutes for food,” you can potentially prove that is false by showing timestamped order and delivery records. If they say “food tasted horrible,” that is protected opinion. If they say “clearly using spoiled ingredients,” that implies a factual assertion that may be defamatory if false, but proving it is false requires evidence about the actual ingredients used.

Platform review sites generally have mechanisms for disputing reviews that violate their content policies. Many platforms will remove reviews that contain false factual claims if you provide evidence the claims are false. This is often more effective than legal action because it is faster and does not require proving all elements of defamation.

If I send a demand letter and the person posts it online, does that hurt my case?

It depends on what the person posts along with the letter and what you said in the letter. If they simply post the letter to show that you sent it, that publication of the letter itself is not defamatory and is unlikely to hurt your case. If they post it alongside commentary claiming the letter proves you are trying to silence them or is an abuse of legal process, that commentary could potentially be actionable depending on what they say.

The greater risk is reputational rather than legal. If your letter appears overreaching, if it makes demands that seem unreasonable, or if it is sent in a context where you appear to be trying to suppress legitimate criticism, the public reaction may be more harmful than the original defamatory content. This is part of the Streisand effect: your attempt to suppress information draws more attention to it than it would have received organically.

To minimize this risk, ensure your letter is professional, factually accurate, makes only reasonable demands, and does not include threats that appear vindictive or disproportionate. A well-drafted letter that is publicized may actually help your case by showing that you had legitimate concerns and approached them reasonably. A poorly drafted letter that is publicized can become a PR disaster.

How do I handle a situation where someone is posting true information about me that is embarrassing or harmful?

Defamation law does not protect you from truthful information being shared, even if that information is embarrassing, private, or harmful to your reputation. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If someone posts that you were fired from your job for misconduct, and you actually were fired for misconduct, you have no defamation claim even if the post damages your career prospects.

You may, however, have other legal claims depending on the circumstances. If the information was obtained illegally, such as through hacking or theft, you may have claims for violation of computer fraud statutes or invasion of privacy. If the information is protected by nondisclosure agreements or confidentiality obligations, you may have contract claims against the person who disclosed it. If the disclosure includes private facts about your health, sexuality, or other intimate matters and was done in a way calculated to cause emotional distress, some jurisdictions recognize privacy torts for public disclosure of private facts, though these claims are difficult to win and are constrained by First Amendment protections.

For intimate images shared without consent, most states have revenge porn statutes that create criminal liability and sometimes civil claims even though the images are “true” depictions. California Penal Code section 647(j)(4) criminalizes distribution of intimate images without consent with intent to cause serious emotional distress.

If the information is true and does not fall into one of these narrow exceptions, your remedies are limited to non-legal approaches: asking the person to remove it, requesting platform removal if the content violates platform policies (such as policies against harassment or sharing private information), and working to minimize the visibility of the content through reputation management strategies.

When should I involve law enforcement instead of just sending a demand letter?

Law enforcement involvement is appropriate when the conduct crosses into criminal territory: credible threats of violence, stalking behavior that creates reasonable fear for safety, distribution of intimate images without consent, or doxxing that is designed to incite third parties to harass or harm you. These situations often require the authority of criminal law and the involvement of police both to document the conduct and to provide protection.

If someone sends you a single angry message calling you names, that is unpleasant but not criminal. If someone sends you dozens of messages over several days including statements about knowing where you live and references to harming you, that may constitute criminal threats or stalking. If someone posts your home address alongside inflammatory allegations designed to encourage others to show up at your home, that may constitute the type of cyber harassment that California Penal Code section 653.2 prohibits.

When deciding whether to involve law enforcement, consider the severity and pattern of the conduct, the credibility of any threats, whether the person has demonstrated ability to carry out threats by showing up physically or obtaining your personal information, and whether you feel unsafe. If you are modifying your behavior out of fear—changing routines, installing security systems, avoiding certain locations—that suggests the conduct has crossed into criminal harassment territory.

Law enforcement involvement and civil demand letters are not mutually exclusive. You can make a police report about criminal conduct while also sending a civil demand letter about defamatory statements. However, in your demand letter, you should not threaten to make criminal reports contingent on whether the person complies with your civil demands, as that can constitute extortion.

Should I send the demand letter myself or have a lawyer send it?

Letters from attorneys generally carry more weight than letters from individuals because they signal that you have consulted counsel, that you understand the legal basis for your claims, and that you are prepared to follow through with litigation if necessary. An attorney letter also benefits from litigation privilege protection and is less likely to contain mistakes that could undermine your position.

However, attorney letters are also more expensive and more likely to escalate the dispute into formal legal territory. In some situations, a personal email or letter explaining why the statements are false and asking for removal may be more effective, particularly if the person who posted the content is someone you have a pre-existing relationship with or if the dispute arose from a misunderstanding rather than malice.

The decision depends on the relationship between the parties, the severity of the defamation, the sophistication of the defendant, and your resources. For minor disputes between people who know each other, starting with a personal communication may preserve the relationship and resolve the matter quickly. For disputes with strangers, competitors, or situations involving significant harm, an attorney letter is usually the better approach because it establishes seriousness without requiring you to engage directly with someone who may be hostile or irrational.