Online Defamation FAQ

Yes, you can sue someone for defamation on social media in California if the post meets the legal requirements for defamation. Social media defamation is treated as libel under California law because the statements are published in a fixed, written format. To have a viable claim, the social media post must contain a false statement of fact (not just an opinion), be published to at least one other person, be made with the requisite level of fault (negligence for private figures, actual malice for public figures), and cause you damages.

California Civil Code Section 45 defines libel broadly enough to encompass digital communications, including posts on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, and others. The permanence and wide reach of social media can actually strengthen defamation claims because the statements can cause more extensive harm than traditional forms of communication. However, you must still identify the person who made the statement and file suit within California's one-year statute of limitations.

Generally, no. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. Section 230) provides broad immunity to websites and social media platforms for content posted by third-party users. This federal law, which applies in California, states 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.

This means platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, Google, and other websites generally cannot be held liable for defamatory statements made by their users. However, there are important exceptions. Platforms can lose Section 230 immunity if they contribute to the creation or development of the unlawful content, rather than merely hosting it. Additionally, Section 230 does not protect the individual who actually posted the defamatory content.

California courts have consistently applied Section 230 immunity to dismiss defamation claims against platforms, directing plaintiffs to pursue claims against the actual authors of defamatory content instead.

Identifying an anonymous online defamer in California typically requires filing a lawsuit and using the subpoena process to obtain identifying information. The process generally involves these steps: First, you file a John Doe lawsuit against the unknown defendant. Then, you issue a subpoena to the website or platform where the defamatory content was posted, requesting IP addresses, email addresses, account information, and other identifying data.

The platform may notify the anonymous user, who can file a motion to quash the subpoena. California courts apply a balancing test weighing the plaintiff's need for the information against the defendant's First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Under cases like Krinsky v. Doe and Highfields Capital Management v. Doe, California courts require plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing of a valid defamation claim before compelling disclosure of anonymous identities.

You must demonstrate that your claim has merit and is not merely an attempt to silence legitimate criticism. Courts consider whether the statement is actionable defamation, whether you have exhausted other means of identification, and whether the disclosure serves a legitimate purpose.

The statute of limitations for online defamation in California is one year from the date of first publication, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340(c). California follows the single publication rule, which means the limitations period begins when the defamatory content is first posted online, not each time someone views or accesses it. This rule prevents plaintiffs from circumventing the statute of limitations by pointing to subsequent views of continuously available online content.

However, the application of this rule to internet publications has created some complexity. California courts have held that a substantial modification or republication of the content, such as re-posting it to a new platform or significantly editing and re-uploading it, may restart the limitations period. Merely keeping content accessible online does not constitute republication.

Courts have also grappled with when discovery of online defamation should toll the statute of limitations, particularly for content posted in obscure locations. Given the short one-year period, individuals who discover defamatory content online should act quickly to preserve evidence and consult with an attorney.

Yes, you can potentially sue the person who wrote a defamatory review on Yelp, Google, or other review platforms in California, but you cannot sue the platforms themselves due to Section 230 immunity. For a review to be actionable defamation, it must contain false statements of fact rather than protected opinions. California courts recognize that review sites are understood by readers to contain subjective opinions, which affects the analysis.

However, a review that states specific false facts, such as claiming a restaurant failed a health inspection when it did not, or that a contractor stole money when they did not, can be actionable defamation. The challenge often lies in distinguishing between non-actionable opinions (such as "this restaurant has terrible food") and actionable false facts ("this restaurant gave me food poisoning because they serve expired meat").

Courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the context of the review platform and whether a reasonable reader would interpret the statement as fact or opinion. Additionally, California's anti-SLAPP statute may apply to review-based defamation claims, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a probability of prevailing early in the litigation.

Getting defamatory content removed from the internet involves several potential approaches under California law. First, you can send a cease and desist letter directly to the person who posted the content, demanding removal and threatening legal action. Many individuals will remove content when faced with potential liability. Second, you can report the content to the platform using their terms of service violation reporting mechanisms. While platforms are immune from defamation liability under Section 230, they may voluntarily remove content that violates their policies.

Third, you can file a defamation lawsuit and seek injunctive relief ordering the removal of the content. California courts can order defendants to remove defamatory statements, though courts must carefully craft such orders to avoid prior restraint issues under the First Amendment. Fourth, if you obtain a court judgment finding the content defamatory, you can submit that judgment to search engines and platforms to support removal requests. Google, for example, has processes for removing content pursuant to valid court orders.

Finally, some victims pursue online reputation management strategies to push down negative content in search results, though this does not remove the defamatory content itself.

Yes, sharing, retweeting, or republishing defamatory content can constitute defamation under California law. Each publication of a defamatory statement to a new audience is a separate act of defamation. Under California Civil Code Section 44 and related provisions, anyone who republishes a defamatory statement is subject to the same liability as the original publisher. This principle applies to social media sharing, including retweets, shares, reposts, and forwarding content to others.

However, liability for republication requires that the person sharing the content had the requisite level of fault. For private figure plaintiffs, this means negligence in verifying the truth of the statement. For public figure plaintiffs, this means actual malice. Courts may consider whether the person simply clicked a share button without adding commentary versus whether they endorsed or amplified the defamatory content with their own statements.

The context of the sharing, including any additional commentary added, may also affect whether the republication constitutes actionable defamation. Individuals should be cautious about sharing content that makes serious factual accusations, as they may face liability even if they were not the original source.

Victims of online defamation in California can potentially recover several categories of damages. General damages compensate for harm to reputation, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish caused by the defamation. In cases of libel per se, which includes many online defamation cases involving accusations of criminal conduct or statements injurious to one's profession, general damages are presumed without proof of specific monetary harm.

Special damages cover quantifiable economic losses directly resulting from the defamation, such as lost business, lost employment opportunities, lost income, or expenses incurred to repair your reputation. These must be proven with specificity and a causal connection to the defamatory statements.

Punitive damages may be available if you prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code Section 3294. Online defamation cases involving intentional misconduct or reckless disregard for the truth may support punitive damages. Given the potential viral spread of online content and its permanent accessibility, damages in online defamation cases can be substantial. Courts consider factors such as the size of the audience reached, the permanence of the publication, and the severity of the false accusations when assessing damages.

The First Amendment provides significant protection for speech, including online speech, but it does not protect defamatory statements of fact. Under both federal constitutional law and the California Constitution's free speech provisions, false statements of fact that harm another's reputation are not protected speech and can give rise to civil liability.

However, the First Amendment does protect several categories of speech that are sometimes mistaken for defamation. Pure opinions that do not imply false facts are protected. Hyperbole, satire, parody, and rhetorical exaggeration are generally protected when a reasonable reader would not interpret them as stating actual facts. Statements on matters of public concern receive heightened protection through the actual malice standard for public figures.

California courts have held that the context of online speech matters in determining whether statements are protected. Online forums, social media, and review sites are often understood as venues for opinion and debate, which may weigh in favor of First Amendment protection. However, even in these contexts, specific false factual accusations can be actionable. The First Amendment also informs California's anti-SLAPP statute, which provides enhanced protection for speech on matters of public interest.

Yes, you can potentially sue for defamation based on private messages or emails in California, as long as the communication was published to at least one person other than yourself. The publication element of defamation requires that the false statement be communicated to a third party. If someone sends a defamatory private message or email only to you, there is no publication and thus no defamation claim.

However, if the message is sent to you and copied to others, sent to a group, forwarded by the sender to third parties, or shown to others by the sender, the publication requirement is satisfied. California Civil Code Section 45 defines libel as a false and unprivileged publication by writing, which encompasses emails and electronic messages. Private messages and emails are treated as written communications and thus fall under libel rather than slander.

The private nature of the communication may affect damages, as the harm to reputation may be more limited than public statements. Courts also consider whether the communication was protected by a qualified privilege, such as communications made in certain business or personal relationships. Emails and messages within a company about employee performance, for example, may be privileged if made without malice to persons with a legitimate interest.