Online Defamation Cease Desist Demand Letters
Online Defamation Cease & Desist Letters
California Defamation Law & Section 230 Immunity
Defamation Law – California & U.S.
📋 Online = Libel: Social media posts, blog articles, reviews, forum comments, and emails are generally treated as libel (written defamation) under California law. Libel is actionable without proof of special damages if per se.
Elements of Defamation (California)
| Element | What You Must Prove |
|---|---|
| 1. Publication | Statement communicated to at least one third party (not just you) |
| 2. False statement of fact | Not pure opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, or substantially true |
| 3. Unprivileged | Not protected by absolute or conditional privilege |
| 4. Fault | Negligence (private figure) or actual malice (public official/figure) |
| 5. Damages | Presumed for libel per se; must prove for other libel (harm to reputation, emotional distress, economic loss) |
California Defamation Statutes
- Civ. Code §44: Defines libel as false, unprivileged publication that exposes person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or causes injury
- Civ. Code §45: Libel is written defamation; slander is spoken
- Civ. Code §45a: Defines libel per se (actionable without special damages)
- Civ. Code §46: Defines slander per se (not applicable to most online speech)
- Civ. Code §47: Privileges (judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings, etc.)
- CACI 1700 et seq.: Jury instructions codifying elements and defenses
Libel Per Se Categories (§45a)
These statements are presumed to cause damage; plaintiff need not prove specific harm:
- Accusations of crime: Stating someone committed theft, fraud, assault, etc.
- Loathsome disease: Historically venereal disease; modernly serious infectious diseases
- Unfitness in trade/profession: False claims harming professional reputation (incompetence, fraud, misconduct)
- Sexual misconduct: Adultery, sexual impropriety (especially for individuals holding themselves out as moral exemplars)
Public vs. Private Figure Distinction
| Plaintiff Status | Fault Standard | What This Means |
|---|---|---|
| Public official | Actual malice | Government officials, elected figures: plaintiff must prove defendant knew statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for truth |
| Public figure (general) | Actual malice | Celebrities, well-known individuals with pervasive fame |
| Limited-purpose public figure | Actual malice (for statements about that public controversy) | Person who thrusts themselves into public controversy on specific issue |
| Private figure | Negligence | Most individuals and small businesses: easier standard – defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying truth |
⚠️ Actual Malice = High Bar: For public figures, proving defendant KNEW the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard is very difficult. Most public-figure defamation claims fail at this element.
Opinion, Truth, and Privilege Defenses
Opinion vs. Fact
Pure opinion is not actionable. Courts use multi-factor test:
- Language used: Does it state verifiable fact (“He stole $10,000”) or express opinion (“I think he’s dishonest”)?
- Context: Editorial/opinion section vs. news article
- Verifiability: Can statement be proven true/false objectively?
- Broader social context: Rhetorical hyperbole expected in debates
💡 “Implied Fact” Doctrine: Statements presented as opinion that imply unstated false facts can be actionable. Example: “In my opinion, he’s a thief” implies factual assertion he stole something.
Common Non-Actionable Statements
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Pure opinion | “He’s an idiot,” “She’s unprofessional,” “This company sucks” |
| Rhetorical hyperbole | “They’re criminals” (in heated political debate, not literal accusation) |
| Name-calling / epithets | “Jerk,” “scammer” (context-dependent – could be actionable if implies specific facts) |
| Subjective evaluations | “Terrible service,” “worst lawyer I’ve met” |
Actionable “Opinion-Like” Statements
These appear as opinion but imply verifiable false facts:
- “I believe she embezzled money” (implies factual basis: she embezzled)
- “In my experience, he’s a con artist” (implies he committed fraud)
- “I think they’re running a Ponzi scheme” (implies specific illegal conduct)
Truth Defense
- Complete defense: True statements, no matter how harmful, are not actionable
- Substantial truth: Minor inaccuracies don’t destroy defense if “gist” or “sting” of statement is true
- Burden of proof: Plaintiff must prove falsity (not defendant proving truth) in cases of public concern
Privileges – California Civ. Code §47
| Privilege Type | Scope |
|---|---|
| Judicial proceedings (§47(b)) | Absolute immunity for statements in lawsuits, pleadings, testimony, legal filings |
| Legislative proceedings (§47(b)) | Statements to legislators, public hearings, official proceedings |
| Fair and true report (§47(d)) | Fair and true reporting of judicial, legislative, or official proceedings |
| Common interest (§47(c)) | Statements made to interested parties (e.g., employer reference, internal company communication) without malice |
⚠️ Republication = New Publication: Repeating someone else’s defamatory statement (“Joe said you’re a thief”) makes YOU liable unless you have privilege or can prove truth. “Just quoting” is not a defense.
Special Damages vs. Presumed Damages
- Libel per se: Damages presumed; plaintiff need only show statement fits a per se category
- Other libel: Plaintiff must prove actual harm (lost business, emotional distress, reputational harm with specificity)
- Punitive damages: Available on showing of malice, fraud, or oppression
Drafting Defamation Cease-and-Desist Letters
Strategic Goals
- Immediate removal of defamatory posts/content
- Retraction / correction: Public statement correcting the false information
- No further publication: Permanent cessation of defamatory statements
- Damages: Compensation for harm already caused (less common in initial demand)
- Preserve evidence: Force defendant to preserve posts, screenshots, communications
Tone & Approach
🚨 SLAPP RISK WARNING: California has strong anti-SLAPP law (CCP §425.16). Aggressive defamation demands about public-interest speech can backfire, resulting in fee-shifting and countersuits. Carefully assess SLAPP risk before sending demand (covered in separate guide).
- Professional, measured: Avoid threats like “we will destroy you in court”
- Specific: Quote exact defamatory statements with URLs, screenshots, dates
- Explain falsity: Provide evidence showing why statements are false
- Distinguish fact from opinion: Focus on verifiable false factual statements, not subjective opinions
- Offer resolution: Removal + clarification may be sufficient without litigation
Letter Structure
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Identification of statements | Quote exact language; provide URLs, screenshots, dates |
| Why statements are false | Specific facts contradicting claims; attach evidence (documents, records, witness statements) |
| Why statements are defamatory | How they harm reputation; fit into per se categories if applicable |
| Legal elements | Publication, falsity, harm to reputation; cite California statutes |
| Damages / harm | Lost business, clients, job opportunities; emotional distress; reputational harm |
| Demand | Remove posts immediately; publish retraction/correction; cease further defamatory statements; preserve evidence |
| Deadline & consequences | 7–14 days; litigation if no compliance |
What to Avoid
- Vague complaints (“You said mean things about me” – be specific)
- Demanding removal of true statements or protected opinions
- Threatening frivolous litigation (opens you to malicious prosecution claims)
- Demanding broad gag orders beyond the defamatory statements
- Ignoring SLAPP risk for public-interest speech
Special Considerations
Anonymous Posters:
- If defamation is from anonymous account, demand may need to target platform first (requesting identity disclosure)
- Consider subpoena to platform for user identity (requires lawsuit or court order)
- Balance: unmasking anonymous speaker has First Amendment implications; courts require showing you have viable claim
Former Employees / Business Partners:
- May have conditional privileges (common-interest communications)
- Check for non-disparagement clauses in employment/separation agreements (breach of contract claim often easier than defamation)
Competitors:
- Commercial disparagement / trade libel may apply if false statements harm business reputation
- Higher burden: must prove special damages (actual lost customers/sales)
Sample Defamation Cease-and-Desist Letters
Sample 1: Social Media Defamation (False Accusation of Crime)
[Your Name]
[Address]
[Email / Phone]
[Date]
[Defendant Name]
[Address if known, or:]
[Social Media Handle: @DefendantUsername]
CEASE AND DESIST – DEFAMATORY FALSE STATEMENTS
Dear [Defendant Name]:
I am writing regarding false and defamatory statements you published about me on [Platform] on [Date]. Specifically, you posted the following statement:
“[EXACT QUOTE OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENT, e.g.: ‘John Smith stole $50,000 from our company and committed fraud. He’s a criminal.’]”
[URL: [Link]]
[Screenshot attached as Exhibit A]
These statements are categorically FALSE and constitute libel under California Civil Code §§44, 45, and 45a.
FALSITY OF YOUR STATEMENTS:
1. I did not steal any money from [Company]. [Explain truth: You left employment under normal circumstances; no accusations were made; you have character references, etc.]
2. I have never been charged with or convicted of any crime. Your accusation of “fraud” and calling me a “criminal” is completely fabricated.
3. [Attach contradictory evidence: Employment separation letter stating “resignation in good standing,” character references, lack of any police report or charges, etc.]
LEGAL VIOLATION:
Your statements constitute libel per se under California Civil Code §45a because they falsely accuse me of criminal conduct. Such statements are presumed to cause reputational harm without proof of special damages.
Elements of your liability:
1. Publication: You published to third parties (your [X] followers, public post);
2. False Statement of Fact: Your claims are verifiable factual assertions, not protected opinion;
3. Unprivileged: No privilege applies to your social media accusations;
4. Fault: You acted with at least negligence, if not actual malice, in publishing false accusations without any factual basis;
5. Harm: Your statements have damaged my reputation, caused emotional distress, and harmed my professional standing.
HARM CAUSED:
As a direct result of your false statements:
• [Example: Three potential clients withdrew from contract negotiations after seeing your post];
• [Example: I have received hostile messages from third parties who read your accusations];
• I have suffered severe emotional distress, reputational harm, and damage to my professional reputation.
DEMAND:
I demand that you immediately:
1. Remove the defamatory post from [Platform] within 48 hours;
2. Publish a retraction and correction stating: “I previously made false statements about [Your Name] accusing him of theft and fraud. These statements were untrue. I retract them and apologize for any harm caused”;
3. Cease making any further false or defamatory statements about me;
4. Preserve all evidence related to this matter, including the original post, any drafts, and communications discussing me.
If you fail to comply by [Date – 7 days from letter], I will pursue all available legal remedies, including:
• Filing a defamation lawsuit seeking damages for harm to my reputation, emotional distress, and economic losses;
• Seeking punitive damages based on your malicious conduct;
• Requesting attorney’s fees and costs.
I am open to resolving this matter promptly if you take immediate corrective action. Please respond by [Deadline] to confirm compliance.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Enclosures:
– Screenshot of defamatory post (Exhibit A)
– [Evidence contradicting false claims]
Sample 2: Online Business Defamation (Professional Incompetence)
[Your Business Name]
[Address]
[Email / Phone]
[Date]
[Defendant Name]
[Address]
Re: Defamatory False Statements – Demand for Removal and Retraction
Dear [Defendant]:
On [Date], you published the following statement on [Platform / Blog URL]:
“[QUOTE, e.g.: ‘[Your Business] is a scam operation. They defraud clients and provide zero value. The owner has no credentials and is running an illegal business.’]”
These statements are provably false and constitute libel per se under California law.
FALSITY:
1. “[Your Business] is a scam” – FALSE. We are a licensed, registered business in good standing. [Attach business license, Better Business Bureau rating, professional certifications.]
2. “Defraud clients” – FALSE. We have never been accused of fraud by any client, regulatory body, or court. [Attach client testimonials, lack of complaints with regulatory agencies.]
3. “Owner has no credentials” – FALSE. [Your credentials: Licensed [Professional], [X] years experience, [Degrees/Certifications].] [Attach diplomas, licenses.]
4. “Running an illegal business” – FALSE. We hold all required licenses and permits. [Attach documentation.]
DEFAMATION PER SE:
Your statements falsely accuse us of professional incompetence, fraud, and illegal conduct, constituting libel per se under Cal. Civ. Code §45a (unfitness in trade/profession). Damages are presumed.
DAMAGES:
Your false statements have:
• Caused [number] prospective clients to cancel consultations/contracts;
• Generated negative inquiries and loss of referrals;
• Harmed our business reputation in the [industry] community;
• Caused economic loss of approximately $[amount] in lost business.
DEMAND:
1. Remove the defamatory blog post / social media content within 72 hours;
2. Publish a retraction stating the accusations were false and apologizing;
3. Cease making further false statements;
4. [Optional: Compensate us $[amount] for economic damages already incurred.]
Failure to comply by [Date] will result in litigation seeking damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
Sincerely,
[Name / Title]
[Business]
Sample 3: Conditional / Measured Demand (SLAPP-Aware)
[Your Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[Date]
[Defendant Name]
[Address]
Re: Request for Removal of False Statements
Dear [Defendant]:
I am writing regarding statements you made about me on [Platform] on [Date]. You stated:
“[QUOTE]”
I believe these statements are factually inaccurate and harmful to my reputation. Specifically:
[Explain why statements are false with evidence, not legal threats]
I understand that you may have been misinformed or acting on incomplete information. However, the continued presence of these false statements online is causing me significant reputational and professional harm.
I respectfully request that you:
1. Remove the statements from [Platform];
2. Consider posting a clarification that the information was inaccurate.
I believe this matter can be resolved amicably without litigation. If you have questions or wish to discuss, please contact me at [Email].
If I do not hear from you within [14 days], I will need to consult legal counsel about my options.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Note: This letter avoids aggressive legal threats and SLAPP triggers while still requesting removal. Appropriate when SLAPP risk is high or when you want to de-escalate.]
Section 230 & Platform Immunity
47 U.S.C. § 230 – Federal Platform Immunity
📋 Key Principle: “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.” – 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1)
Federal courts have broadly interpreted Section 230 to immunize platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Yelp, Google, etc.) from liability for third-party content.
What Section 230 Means for Defamation Claims
| Scenario | Outcome |
|---|---|
| User posts defamation on Facebook | You CAN sue the user; you CANNOT sue Facebook for hosting it |
| Yelp review contains false accusations | You CAN sue the reviewer; you generally CANNOT sue Yelp |
| Blog comment on WordPress site | You CAN sue commenter; site owner likely immune under §230 |
| Platform refuses to remove defamatory content | Platform still immune; §230 protects editorial decisions (with narrow exceptions) |
Narrow Exceptions to §230 Immunity
- Federal criminal law: §230 doesn’t immunize platforms from federal criminal prosecution
- Intellectual property: §230 explicitly excludes IP claims (copyright, trademark)
- Platform as content creator: If platform creates or materially contributes to unlawful content (not just hosting), immunity may not apply
- FOSTA/SESTA: Platforms can be liable for facilitating sex trafficking
⚠️ Don’t Waste Resources Suing Platforms: Courts routinely dismiss defamation claims against platforms under §230. Target the actual speaker/poster, not the platform, unless you have evidence platform created the content.
Demanding Platform Action (Without Suing Platform)
Even though you can’t sue the platform, you can request removal under their Terms of Service:
- Facebook/Instagram: Report content as “harassment,” “false news,” or “bullying” (not specifically “defamation”)
- Twitter/X: Report for “abusive behavior” or “private information”
- Yelp: Flag reviews violating Content Guidelines (fake reviews, conflicts of interest); note Yelp has robust appeals process but rarely removes negative reviews
- Google Reviews: Flag as “off-topic,” “spam,” or “conflict of interest”; Google will review but removal is discretionary
- Reddit: Contact subreddit moderators; report to Reddit admins for harassment
💡 Court Orders: Platforms will sometimes remove content pursuant to court order from defamation lawsuit against the poster. Obtain injunction against poster, then serve on platform.
Strategies When Defamer is Anonymous
- Subpoena platform for identity: File John Doe lawsuit, subpoena platform for user IP address, email, registration info
- Balance First Amendment: Courts require showing that (1) you can survive demurrer/motion to dismiss on your claim, and (2) identity is necessary to pursue claim
- Notice to anonymous party: Platform typically notifies user of subpoena, giving them chance to oppose
- High bar: Courts protect anonymous speech; you must show strong prima facie case of defamation
Recent Developments (2023–2025)
Supreme Court cases (Gonzalez v. Google, Taamneh v. Twitter, 2023; Herrick v. Grindr, pending 2025) have largely upheld §230 immunity with narrow limits. Expect platforms to remain broadly immune from defamation liability for user-generated content.
Attorney Services for Defamation Matters
Victim of Online Defamation?
I represent individuals and businesses harmed by false online statements. I also defend against overreaching defamation claims and navigate California’s anti-SLAPP law to protect free speech rights.
For Defamation Victims
- Draft cease-and-desist letters balancing firmness with SLAPP risk mitigation
- Evaluate strength of defamation claim (fact vs. opinion, falsity, damages)
- Pursue platform takedowns and court orders for content removal
- File defamation lawsuits and obtain injunctive relief
- Unmask anonymous defamers through subpoenas and John Doe litigation
- Handle business disparagement and trade libel claims
- Negotiate retractions and public corrections
For Accused Speakers / Defendants
- Evaluate defenses: truth, opinion, privilege, substantial truth
- Respond strategically to cease-and-desist letters
- File anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss meritless claims (with fee-shifting)
- Defend defamation lawsuits through trial
- Assert First Amendment and free speech protections
Why Early Legal Counsel Matters
SLAPP Risk & Strategic Decisions: California’s anti-SLAPP law (CCP §425.16) creates significant risk for plaintiffs filing weak defamation claims about public-interest speech. Attorney analysis prevents costly mistakes like pursuing unwinnable claims or sending demands that trigger counter-litigation and fee awards.
Common Defamation Scenarios
- False accusations of criminal conduct (theft, fraud, abuse)
- Professional incompetence claims (malpractice, negligence)
- Business defamation (scam accusations, product quality lies)
- Revenge posts by former employees or partners
- Online harassment campaigns and cyberbullying
- Fake reviews and competitor sabotage
Schedule a Call
Book a call to discuss your defamation matter. I’ll review the statements, assess whether they’re actionable, evaluate defenses and SLAPP risk, and recommend a strategy for resolution or litigation.
Contact Information
Email: owner@terms.law
Frequently Asked Questions
Generally no. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. §230) immunizes platforms from liability for third-party content. You must sue the person who posted the content, not the platform. Platforms may voluntarily remove content under their ToS, but they’re not legally required to do so in most cases.
It depends on context. If stated as verifiable fact (“He scammed me out of $5,000”), it’s potentially actionable if false. If rhetorical hyperbole or opinion in context (“I feel scammed” after bad service), likely not actionable. Courts look at whether an ordinary reader would interpret it as stating provable facts vs. expressing subjective opinion. Accusations of specific fraudulent conduct are typically actionable; vague name-calling may not be.
Substantial truth is a complete defense. If the “gist” or “sting” of the statement is true, minor inaccuracies don’t make it actionable. However, if false elements change the defamatory impact (e.g., “He was fired for stealing” when he resigned voluntarily with no theft), the false portion can support a claim. Courts focus on whether the challenged statement creates a materially different impression than the truth would.
Strategically complex decision. Public response can amplify the defamation (Streisand Effect) but silence might let false narrative persist. Generally: (1) for limited audiences, private legal demand is better, (2) for viral posts, measured public correction of facts (without engaging in mudslinging) plus legal action, (3) avoid emotional public fights that make you look defensive. Consult attorney before posting public responses that could waive privileges or create evidence problems.