You
What counts as defamation in California?
S
Civil Code § 44 defines defamation as either libel (written, § 45) or slander (oral, § 46). The elements are: (1) a publication of a false statement of fact (not opinion), (2) about the plaintiff, (3) to a third party, (4) with the required fault (negligence for private figures, actual malice for public figures), and (5) causing damages. Certain categories (criminal conduct, professional incompetence, loathsome disease, unchastity) are defamation per se under § 46, which means damages are presumed. The statement must be a verifiable fact, not opinion or hyperbole.
You
What is the statute of limitations on California defamation?
S
One year from publication under CCP § 340(c). The single-publication rule means each separate publication starts its own clock (a magazine article that runs once starts one clock; an online post can be complicated by edits or republication). Discovery rules apply narrowly. The short limitations period is one of the reasons defamation cases need to move quickly: a six-month-old defamatory post gives six months to send the letter, evaluate the anti-SLAPP risk, and decide whether to file.
You
What is anti-SLAPP and why does it matter?
S
California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16) allows defendants in cases arising from protected speech (any statement on a matter of public interest, made in a public forum, in connection with an issue under consideration by official bodies, etc.) to file a special motion to strike at the start of the case. If the motion is granted, the case is dismissed and the defendant recovers mandatory attorney fees from the plaintiff under § 425.16(c). Anti-SLAPP is broad in California and applies to many types of speech (online reviews, social-media posts about public figures, statements to police or regulators, news reporting). The plaintiff in a defamation case has to win the anti-SLAPP motion to proceed, which means the case has to survive minimum-merit review or the plaintiff pays the defendant's lawyer.
You
Why does anti-SLAPP change the strategy?
S
Filing a weak defamation case in California is risky because of the fee shift. A plaintiff who files, loses an anti-SLAPP motion, and faces a $50,000-$200,000 fee award is in a worse position than before filing. The strategy in California defamation work is to assess anti-SLAPP exposure before filing, not after. The attorney letter often does the work without ever needing to file: many defendants take down the defamatory statement, issue a retraction, or settle once they see a credible letter. The cases that proceed to court are the cases that have already passed the anti-SLAPP minimum-merit test in the lawyer's pre-filing analysis.
You
What damages are recoverable in defamation cases?
S
Defamation per se cases (criminal conduct, professional incompetence, loathsome disease, unchastity) presume damages, which means plaintiffs do not need to prove specific harm. Defamation per quod requires proof of special damages. Compensatory damages cover reputation harm, emotional distress, and economic loss (lost business, lost job). Punitive damages are available where actual malice is proven, with the constitutional limits set by State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. The damages package in a defamation case is reputational repair plus the dollar number; many cases settle with takedown, retraction, and a smaller dollar payment because the takedown is the primary value.
You
What is AB 933 / Civ. Code § 47.1?
S
AB 933, signed in 2023 and codified at Civ. Code § 47.1, creates a privilege for individuals who publicly disclose having been a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or domestic violence. The privilege limits defamation liability for survivors who speak publicly about their experiences. A defendant who threatens a survivor with a defamation case after the survivor's public disclosure faces the § 47.1 privilege as a defense plus anti-SLAPP fee exposure. The statute changes the landscape for both sides; survivors have stronger protections, and plaintiffs threatening defamation against survivors face heightened risk. I assess § 47.1 in the pre-letter analysis.
You
What about online review platforms and Section 230?
S
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) generally immunizes online platforms (Yelp, Google, Glassdoor, Reddit) from liability for content posted by users. The platform itself is not the right defendant; the user who posted the content is. The platform may remove content in response to a court order or its own policies, but it cannot be sued for the third-party post. The demand letter usually goes to the user (when identifiable) or the platform's legal notice department for content removal where the platform's policies allow.
You
Can I get a defamatory post taken down?
S
Sometimes, depending on the platform's policies and the strength of the defamation claim. Google, Yelp, Glassdoor, and other major platforms have content-removal procedures for court-ordered defamation findings; some accept verified defamation determinations and remove the content. A demand letter to the user combined with a separate letter to the platform's legal department often produces takedown without court involvement. The takedown is often the primary remedy the client wants; the dollar damages are secondary.
You
What does the $575 package include?
S
A written anti-SLAPP risk analysis (whether the statement at issue is likely protected speech under CCP § 425.16, the strength of the merit case, and the fee-shift exposure if a motion to strike is granted), plus an attorney demand letter on letterhead citing Civ. Code §§ 44-46 and the one-year statute of limitations. The letter demands retraction, takedown, and damages where appropriate. The letter is sent USPS certified mail with signature requested plus email. Three negotiation responses are included. The package does NOT include filing a complaint; that decision is made after the letter phase based on whether the anti-SLAPP risk has been managed.
You
Why doesn't the package include a draft complaint?
S
Defamation is the one practice area where filing without a careful anti-SLAPP analysis is a financial mistake. The fee-shift exposure on a granted anti-SLAPP motion under § 425.16(c) regularly exceeds $50,000 in defamation cases (the defendant's lawyer's fees through the motion). For that reason, the $575 package focuses on the letter plus the analysis; if filing is the right move after the letter phase, that scope is quoted separately based on the specific facts and the strength of the anti-SLAPP analysis. This is different from other practice areas where the $1,200 letter-plus-draft-lawsuit package makes sense.