Defamation Basics FAQ

Defamation under California law is a false statement of fact published to a third party that causes harm to another person's reputation. California Civil Code Section 44 defines defamation as including both libel and slander. To establish a defamation claim in California, a plaintiff must prove four essential elements: (1) the defendant made a false statement purporting to be fact; (2) the statement was published or communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff; (3) the defendant acted with at least negligence regarding the truth or falsity of the statement; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

California courts have consistently held that opinions, hyperbole, and rhetorical statements are generally protected speech and do not constitute actionable defamation. The key distinction is whether a reasonable person would interpret the statement as asserting a provable fact rather than expressing a subjective opinion.

Under California law, libel and slander are the two forms of defamation distinguished primarily by the medium of communication. California Civil Code Section 45 defines libel as defamation by written words, printing, pictures, effigies, or other fixed representations that expose a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or cause them to be shunned or avoided, or that injure their occupation.

Slander, defined in California Civil Code Section 46, refers to defamatory statements made orally or through transitory gestures. A significant practical difference is that libel is often considered more harmful because it creates a permanent record that can be widely disseminated. California law recognizes libel per se, where certain statements are so inherently damaging that damages are presumed, such as accusations of criminal conduct, loathsome disease, or professional incompetence. Slander requires proof of special damages unless it falls into specific categories known as slander per se.

To successfully prove defamation in California, a plaintiff must establish several critical elements through competent evidence. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant made an unprivileged publication of a false statement of fact. This means the statement must be presented as an objective fact rather than a subjective opinion, and it must be communicated to at least one third party.

Second, the statement must be false; truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims under California law. Third, the plaintiff must prove fault on the defendant's part. For private figures, this requires showing the defendant was negligent in determining the truth of the statement. For public figures or public officials, the plaintiff must prove actual malice, meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.

Finally, the plaintiff must prove damages, though certain statements constitute defamation per se, where damages are presumed.

Defamation per se is a category of defamatory statements that are considered so inherently harmful that damages are presumed without the plaintiff needing to prove actual economic loss. Under California law, both libel per se and slander per se are recognized.

California Civil Code Section 45a establishes that libel per se includes statements that charge a person with crime, impute to them the presence of an infectious or loathsome disease, tend directly to injure them in their occupation, or impute general disqualification in those respects which their office or occupation requires. Slander per se under California Civil Code Section 46 includes similar categories: charging someone with a crime, imputing certain diseases, statements injurious to one's profession or business, and imputing unchastity to a woman.

When a statement qualifies as defamation per se, the plaintiff can recover general damages for harm to reputation, emotional distress, and humiliation without providing specific evidence of monetary loss, making these cases significantly easier to pursue.

In California, defamation claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340(c). This means that a plaintiff must file their lawsuit within one year from the date the defamatory statement was first published. The statute of limitations for defamation is notably shorter than many other civil claims, reflecting the policy interest in resolving reputation-related disputes quickly while evidence and memories are fresh.

California follows the single publication rule, meaning the statute of limitations begins when the defamatory material is first made available to the public, not each time someone reads or accesses it. However, for online publications, courts have grappled with when this period begins, particularly for content that remains accessible indefinitely. A substantial modification or republication of the defamatory content may restart the limitations period.

Given this short timeframe, individuals who believe they have been defamed should consult with an attorney promptly to preserve their legal rights and options.

The distinction between fact and opinion is crucial in California defamation law because only false statements of fact can be actionable; pure opinions are protected by the First Amendment and California Constitution. California courts apply the totality of the circumstances test to determine whether a reasonable reader or listener would interpret a statement as asserting a verifiable fact.

This analysis considers the language used, the context in which the statement was made, the broader social context, and whether the statement can be proven true or false. Statements that are clearly hyperbolic, rhetorical, or figurative are generally treated as protected opinion. However, a statement phrased as an opinion can still be defamatory if it implies false underlying facts. For example, saying "in my opinion, John is a thief" implies the factual assertion that John committed theft.

California courts also consider whether the forum or medium typically presents factual reporting or opinion content. Courts have held that certain contexts, like online reviews or political debates, signal to readers that statements are likely opinions rather than objective facts.

California defamation plaintiffs can potentially recover several categories of damages depending on the circumstances of their case. General damages, also known as presumed or non-economic damages, compensate for harm to reputation, personal humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional suffering. In defamation per se cases, these damages are presumed without proof of specific monetary loss.

Special damages, or economic damages, cover quantifiable financial losses directly caused by the defamation, such as lost wages, lost business opportunities, or medical expenses for psychological treatment. Plaintiffs must prove special damages with specificity in most slander cases that do not qualify as slander per se.

Punitive damages may be awarded in California defamation cases when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud as defined in California Civil Code Section 3294. These damages are designed to punish particularly egregious conduct and deter similar behavior. California courts have upheld substantial punitive damage awards in defamation cases involving intentional misconduct or reckless disregard for the truth.

The actual malice standard, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and followed in California, requires public figures and public officials to prove that a defendant made a defamatory statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. This heightened standard reflects First Amendment values protecting robust debate on public issues.

Under California law, actual malice is a subjective standard focusing on the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication. Reckless disregard means the defendant entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement but published it anyway. Mere negligence, failure to investigate, or even ill will toward the plaintiff is insufficient to establish actual malice.

California courts have held that public figures include elected officials, candidates for public office, and individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or voluntarily inject themselves into public controversies. The actual malice standard makes defamation claims significantly more difficult for public figures to win, as they must prove with convincing clarity what the defendant actually believed when making the statement.

Yes, businesses and corporations can sue for defamation in California, though the analysis differs somewhat from individual claims. California Civil Code Section 45 and related provisions protect business entities from false statements that injure their business reputation, deter others from dealing with them, or otherwise harm their commercial interests.

A business defamation claim, sometimes called trade libel or commercial disparagement, typically requires proof that the defendant made a false statement of fact about the business, the statement was published to third parties, the defendant acted with the requisite level of fault, and the business suffered actual damages. Unlike individual plaintiffs, businesses generally cannot recover for emotional distress or personal humiliation.

Instead, business plaintiffs must demonstrate tangible economic harm such as lost customers, cancelled contracts, diminished sales, or damage to business relationships. California courts have recognized that certain statements about a business's products, services, financial condition, or business practices can be actionable defamation. Businesses should be aware that they may be considered public figures for purposes of the actual malice standard if they are prominent in their industry or have sought public attention.

If you believe you have been defamed in California, taking prompt and strategic action is essential to protect your rights and preserve your legal options. First, document and preserve all evidence of the defamatory statement, including screenshots with timestamps, printed copies, witness information, and any metadata showing when and where the statement was published. Given California's one-year statute of limitations, timing is critical.

Second, assess the harm you have suffered by documenting any economic losses, such as lost job opportunities or business relationships, as well as emotional impacts and reputational damage. Third, consider whether a cease and desist letter or retraction demand might resolve the situation without litigation. California Civil Code Section 48a provides that a timely demand for correction can limit the damages recoverable in certain defamation cases.

Fourth, consult with an experienced California defamation attorney who can evaluate the strength of your claim, identify potential defenses the defendant might raise, and advise on the best course of action. Be prepared to discuss whether you are a public or private figure, the specific words used, how the statement was published, and your damages.