Defamation Damages FAQ

California defamation plaintiffs can potentially recover several categories of damages. General damages, also called presumed or non-economic damages, compensate for the inherent harm to reputation, personal humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional suffering that naturally flows from defamation. These damages do not require proof of specific monetary loss and are awarded based on the jury's assessment of the harm to the plaintiff's reputation and emotional well-being.

Special damages, or economic damages, cover specific, quantifiable financial losses directly caused by the defamation. These include lost wages or salary, lost business income or profits, lost employment opportunities, medical expenses for treatment of emotional distress, and other out-of-pocket expenses. Plaintiffs must prove special damages with specificity, showing both the existence and amount of the loss.

Punitive damages may be awarded to punish particularly egregious conduct and deter similar behavior. Under California Civil Code Section 3294, punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Nominal damages, a small sum, may be awarded when defamation is proven but actual harm is not established.

In California, defamation per se and defamation per quod differ significantly in how damages are proven. Defamation per se involves statements that are so inherently damaging that harm to reputation is presumed as a matter of law, without the plaintiff needing to prove specific damages. Under California Civil Code Section 45a for libel and Section 46 for slander, defamation per se includes statements that charge the plaintiff with a crime, impute a loathsome disease, directly injure the plaintiff in their trade, business, or profession, or impute general disqualification in office or occupation. For slander, imputing unchastity to a woman is also per se defamatory.

When a statement qualifies as defamation per se, the plaintiff can recover general damages for presumed harm without providing evidence of specific monetary losses.

Defamation per quod, by contrast, involves statements that are defamatory only when considered in light of extrinsic facts or that do not fall into the per se categories. For defamation per quod, the plaintiff must prove special damages by showing specific, actual economic losses caused by the defamation. This distinction significantly affects the burden of proof and potential recovery in California defamation cases.

Proving damages in a California defamation lawsuit requires presenting competent evidence demonstrating the harm you suffered. For general damages in defamation per se cases, damages are presumed, but you can strengthen your case by testifying about emotional distress, humiliation, and anxiety you experienced; presenting evidence of harm to personal and professional relationships; showing how the defamation affected your standing in the community; and having witnesses describe changes in how others treat you.

For special damages, you must prove specific economic losses with reasonable certainty. Evidence may include documentation of lost wages, such as pay stubs showing income before and after defamation; evidence of lost business, including cancelled contracts or decreased sales; testimony from customers or employers who changed their behavior based on the defamation; medical records and bills for treatment of emotional distress; and expert testimony on economic harm, such as an accountant's analysis of lost profits.

California courts require that special damages be proven with specificity, not through speculation. You must show both the existence of the loss and a causal connection between the defamation and the harm.

Punitive damages in California defamation cases are available 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. This is a higher burden of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard used for compensatory damages.

Malice in the punitive damages context means conduct intended to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. In defamation cases, this typically involves showing the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Oppression means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. Fraud involves intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact with intent to deprive another of property, rights, or to otherwise cause injury.

California courts have upheld punitive damage awards in defamation cases involving intentional spreading of known falsehoods, malicious campaigns to destroy someone's reputation, and repeated defamatory conduct despite warnings. The ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is subject to constitutional limits based on due process considerations.

The amount of money recoverable in a California defamation lawsuit varies widely depending on the specific circumstances of each case. There is no statutory cap on defamation damages in California, and awards can range from nominal amounts to millions of dollars. Factors that influence damage awards include the severity and nature of the defamatory statements, the extent of publication and the size of the audience reached, the plaintiff's prior reputation and standing in the community, the quantifiable economic losses suffered, the emotional and psychological impact on the plaintiff, whether the defamation was intentional or negligent, and the defendant's financial resources for punitive damages.

California courts have upheld substantial defamation verdicts, particularly in cases involving intentional misconduct, widespread publication, or significant professional harm. However, jury awards are subject to judicial review, and excessive verdicts may be reduced on appeal or through remittitur.

Additionally, collecting on a judgment depends on the defendant's ability to pay. Many individual defamers lack significant assets, making collection challenging even after obtaining a large judgment. Consultation with an experienced defamation attorney can help you assess the realistic range of recovery in your specific case.

Yes, emotional distress damages are recoverable in California defamation cases as part of general damages. When defamation causes the plaintiff mental anguish, humiliation, anxiety, depression, or other emotional harm, these injuries are compensable. In defamation per se cases, emotional distress damages are presumed without requiring specific proof of the extent of distress. The plaintiff can recover for the natural emotional harm that flows from having one's reputation damaged.

In defamation per quod cases, while special economic damages must be proven, general damages including emotional distress are still recoverable once the defamation is established.

Evidence that can support emotional distress damages includes the plaintiff's testimony describing feelings of humiliation, anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal; testimony from family members, friends, or coworkers who observed changes in the plaintiff's emotional state; medical or psychological records showing treatment for anxiety, depression, or related conditions; and evidence of physical manifestations of emotional distress such as sleep disturbances, weight changes, or health issues. California courts recognize that harm to reputation inherently causes emotional suffering, as being falsely accused in public naturally causes distress, embarrassment, and psychological harm.

Under California Civil Code Section 48a, a timely retraction demand and the defendant's response can significantly affect the damages recoverable in certain defamation cases. If the defamation was published in a newspaper, radio or television broadcast, or other specified media, and the plaintiff fails to demand a correction within 20 days after learning of the publication, the plaintiff may be limited to recovering only special damages, forfeiting the right to general and exemplary damages.

If the plaintiff makes a timely correction demand and the defendant publishes a correction within 21 days, the plaintiff is limited to special damages. The correction must be published with substantially the same prominence as the original defamatory statement. If the defendant fails to publish a timely correction after a proper demand, the plaintiff may recover general, special, and exemplary damages.

This statutory scheme encourages prompt correction of false statements and provides defendants an opportunity to mitigate harm by publishing retractions. However, Section 48a applies only to specified media outlets and does not cover all forms of defamation. Private communications, online posts outside traditional media, and other forms of publication may not be subject to this statute. Plaintiffs should consult with an attorney to understand whether the retraction demand requirement applies to their case.

Generally, California follows the American Rule, which means each party pays their own attorney's fees regardless of who wins the case. However, there are important exceptions in the defamation context. California's anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, provides that a defendant who prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. This can result in significant fee awards against plaintiffs whose defamation claims are dismissed via anti-SLAPP. Conversely, if a court finds the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous, the plaintiff may recover fees.

If the defamation case involves a contract that includes an attorney's fees provision, such as a confidentiality agreement, the fees clause may apply. In some circumstances, if the defendant's conduct was sufficiently egregious, courts have discretion to award attorney's fees as part of punitive damages or under equitable principles. Malicious prosecution claims following unsuccessful defamation suits may include attorney's fees as damages.

Because attorney's fees in defamation litigation can be substantial, often exceeding the damages at stake, the potential for fee-shifting under the anti-SLAPP statute is a major consideration for both plaintiffs and defendants in California defamation cases.

The plaintiff's pre-existing reputation can significantly affect defamation damages in California. A person with a good reputation has more to lose from defamatory statements, and courts may award greater damages to reflect the greater harm. Conversely, evidence of the plaintiff's bad reputation can be introduced to reduce damages.

Under California law, the defendant may present evidence of the plaintiff's bad reputation to argue that the defamatory statements caused less harm than they would have to someone with a good reputation. This is based on the principle that defamation damages should compensate for actual harm to reputation, and a person whose reputation is already poor suffers less incremental damage.

However, evidence of bad reputation must be relevant to the subject matter of the defamation. If the plaintiff is accused of theft, evidence of a bad reputation for dishonesty may be relevant, but evidence of unrelated character traits would likely be excluded. California courts also distinguish between general bad reputation and specific prior acts. Evidence of specific acts of misconduct is generally not admissible to prove bad reputation; rather, opinion testimony about the plaintiff's general reputation in the community is the proper form of evidence. The plaintiff may also present evidence of good reputation to support their damages claim.

Yes, in many California defamation cases, you can recover damages even without proving specific financial harm. This is a key feature of defamation law that recognizes harm to reputation and emotional well-being as compensable injuries separate from economic loss.

In defamation per se cases, where the statements fall into categories presumed harmful as a matter of law, general damages are presumed without any showing of financial loss. This includes statements accusing someone of crime, imputing loathsome disease, or injuring them in their profession. The jury can award damages for presumed harm to reputation, humiliation, and emotional distress based on the nature of the defamation itself.

Even in defamation per quod cases, where special damages must be proven, the special damages requirement refers to proving that the defamation caused some actual harm, not necessarily direct financial loss. Once special damages are established, general damages for harm to reputation and emotional distress are also recoverable. Additionally, nominal damages may be awarded when defamation is proven but actual damages are minimal or difficult to quantify. Nominal damages establish that the plaintiff's rights were violated, which can be important for vindication and can serve as a basis for other relief such as injunctions or punitive damages.