Is It Defamation? A Plain-Language Guide to Online Statements About You

Why this question matters before you do anything else

When something negative about you appears online, the word "defamation" comes up quickly. It feels like the right word for something unfair, hurtful, or damaging. But defamation is a specific legal idea, and many things that feel defamatory do not meet the definition.

Getting this right early saves you money and stress. A legal threat that does not hold up can backfire: the other person may publish it, a court may dismiss the claim, and in some states you could end up paying their legal costs. On the other hand, if a statement really is false and damaging, knowing that helps you decide when a lawyer is worth calling.

This guide explains the general ideas in plain language. Defamation law is mostly state law, and the details vary. This is not legal advice, and it cannot tell you whether you have a case.

The basic elements

Courts in the United States generally look for a few things in a defamation claim. Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute summarizes them, and they look roughly like this:

Libel is the written form, which includes most online content. Slander is the spoken form.

• A statement of fact. Something that can be proven true or false.
• That is false. Truth is generally a complete defense.
• About you. People who read it would understand it refers to you.
• Published to others. Shared with at least one person other than you. Online posts count.
• With some degree of fault. At minimum, carelessness about whether it was true. Public figures usually must show more, discussed below.
• That caused harm. Damage to your reputation, and often measurable losses like a lost job or client. Some categories of statement are treated as harmful without separate proof in some states.

Fact versus opinion: the line that matters most

Most online negativity is opinion, and opinion is generally protected.

Compare these:

Courts look at the whole context. A statement that sounds factual can be treated as opinion if it appears in an obviously heated rant or uses clear exaggeration. And an opinion that implies hidden facts, like "I think he is a thief, based on what I saw in the books," can sometimes be treated as a factual claim.

If the content you are worried about is mostly opinion, insults, or exaggeration, a defamation claim is unlikely to succeed. That does not mean you have no options. It means the options are things like platform reporting, a public reply, or building better pages, covered elsewhere in this series.

• "This contractor was rude and I would never hire him again." This is opinion. Rude and would-not-hire are judgments.
• "This contractor took my $5,000 deposit and never showed up." This is a statement of fact. It is either true or false.
• "She is the worst manager I have ever had." Opinion.
• "She was fired for stealing from the company." A statement of fact that could be proven true or false.

Truth is a defense

If a statement is substantially true, it generally is not defamation, even if it is embarrassing, old, or unfair in tone. An accurate news report of an arrest is usually not defamatory, even if the charges were later dropped, though the newsroom might be willing to add an update. See getting an old news article updated.

"Substantially true" means the gist is accurate. Minor errors that do not change the overall picture usually do not make a statement defamatory. A small error might still be worth a correction request, which is a much simpler process.

Private people and public figures

The level of fault you need to show depends on who you are.

Public officials and public figures generally must show "actual malice," a legal term meaning the person knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for whether it was true. That standard comes from a 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and is hard to meet.

Private people usually need to show a lower level of fault, often negligence, meaning the person was careless about the truth. Exactly what is required varies by state and by whether the topic is a matter of public concern.

Some people are "limited purpose public figures" for a specific topic, for example someone who stepped into a public controversy. Where that line falls is a question for a lawyer.

Why you usually cannot sue the website

A federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, generally protects websites and apps from being treated as the publisher of content their users post. That means a review site, forum, or social network is usually not liable for a defamatory review or post written by someone else.

In practice, that means:

Google, for example, has a legal removal process where you can submit a court order. Our guide to Google's removal policies explains the difference between policy requests and legal requests.

• Your claim, if you have one, is usually against the person who wrote the content, not the platform.
• Platforms can still choose to remove content that breaks their own rules, and many do.
• If a court rules that specific content is defamatory, many platforms and search engines will act on that court order, even though they were not parties to the case.

Anti-SLAPP laws: a risk to understand

SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. Many states have anti-SLAPP laws designed to stop people from using defamation lawsuits to silence criticism. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press maintains a state-by-state guide to these laws.

Under many anti-SLAPP laws, the person you sue can ask the court to dismiss the case early if it involves speech on a matter of public interest, and you then have to show your claim has a real chance of succeeding. If you cannot, the case may be dismissed, and in some states you may have to pay the other side's attorney's fees.

Reviews of businesses and professionals are often treated as matters of public interest. That makes it especially important to get legal advice before suing over a review.

Other legal ideas that sometimes apply

Defamation is not the only legal concept that comes up with online content. Depending on the facts and your state, a lawyer might also consider:

Each has its own requirements. A lawyer can tell you which, if any, fit your situation.

• False light, recognized in some states, for statements that create a misleading and highly offensive impression.
• Harassment or stalking laws, for repeated targeted conduct.
• Privacy laws, for things like sharing private medical information.
• Copyright, if someone posted your photos or writing without permission.
• Nonconsensual intimate image laws, which exist in most states.

Before you call a lawyer

You will get more out of a consultation if you arrive prepared:

Many bar associations run lawyer referral services that can connect you with an attorney who handles defamation. Ask about cost up front, including whether a demand letter alone is an option.

• Screenshots of the content with dates and URLs
• Notes on who you believe wrote it, and why
• What specifically is false, and evidence showing the truth
• Any concrete harm, such as a lost job, client, or contract, with dates
• Any contact you have had with the person or platform

Options that do not require a lawsuit

Even if something is defamatory, a lawsuit is not always the best path. They are slow, expensive, and public, and filing one can bring more attention to the very content you want people to forget.

Often it makes sense to start with:

While any of that is in motion, it also helps to make sure accurate information about you is easy to find. Our guide on how to improve your Google search results for your name walks through the pages that tend to help most, such as a current professional profile and a simple personal site.

• Platform reporting, if the content breaks the site's rules
• A correction request to the author or publisher
• A calm public reply, where appropriate. See should you respond publicly.
• Building accurate pages about you, so the content has less weight. See can you push down negative results.

Common questions

Sources

1. Defamation (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)
2. 47 U.S. Code § 230: Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)
3. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)
4. Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press)
5. Report Content for Legal Reasons (Google Legal Help)