Unfortunately, since users of the Internet believe they are anonymous, defamation is rampant on the Internet. Defamation on the Internet typically consists of a false and defamatory statement published to a third party on the Internet. Defamation consists of two separate common law claims rolled into one concept: defamation that is oral is considered slander, while defamation that is written is considered libel. Since the Internet is a written medium, defamation on the Internet falls under the libel category.
Typically, the elements of an Internet defamation claim include:
- A false and defamatory statement;
- The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (someone other than the person defamed by the statement);
- Fault amounting to at least negligence or, in the case of public figures, actual malice; and
- Damage to the plaintiff.
Defamation on the Internet is also covered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that a provider of an interactive computer service cannot be held liable for the republication of defamatory statements. This means that a service provider that does not create content, but merely transmits content, cannot be held liable for defamation or other related torts.
Public Figures, Private Figures, and the Actual Malice Standard
The fault standard in defamation cases depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private figure. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), public officials — and, by extension under Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), all-purpose public figures — must prove that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice: knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Private figures face the lower negligence standard in most states, including Michigan.
On the internet, determining whether a plaintiff is a public figure can be complex. A local business owner targeted in a negative review campaign may be a private figure. A prominent blogger, influencer, or media personality with a large following may be treated as a limited-purpose public figure for statements relating to their public role. The distinction matters enormously because it determines the evidentiary burden the plaintiff must meet.
Section 230 and Platform Liability
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) provides broad immunity to interactive computer service providers — websites, social media platforms, review sites, and online forums — for content posted by third-party users. This immunity is why Google, Yelp, Facebook, and other platforms cannot generally be held liable for defamatory reviews or posts that appear on their services. However, Section 230 does not immunize the original poster. The person who wrote the defamatory content remains liable under applicable state defamation law.
This creates a practical challenge for defamation victims: the platform that published the content has immunity, but identifying the anonymous poster requires a subpoena. Courts in Michigan and elsewhere have developed procedures — sometimes called John Doe subpoenas — for requiring platforms and ISPs to disclose the identity of anonymous users in connection with defamation claims. The standard for issuing such subpoenas varies by jurisdiction. In Michigan, plaintiffs must establish a legitimate, cognizable claim before a court will order disclosure.
Identifying Anonymous Internet Defamers
The most significant practical obstacle in internet defamation cases is identifying the person behind an anonymous post. Revision Legal’s internet attorneys handle the full process: filing suit naming John Doe defendants, serving subpoenas on platforms and ISPs to obtain user data, and prosecuting the defamation claim once the defendant is identified. We are familiar with the procedural requirements for unmasking anonymous internet users and with the First Amendment considerations that courts apply in evaluating these requests.
Remedies for Internet Defamation
In a successful defamation case, a plaintiff may recover general damages for harm to reputation, special damages for provable economic losses, and — in cases of malicious defamation — punitive damages. Courts can also issue injunctions ordering the removal of specific defamatory content, though the availability of injunctions in defamation cases is subject to First Amendment prior restraint analysis. Revision Legal’s attorneys assess the available remedies in each case and develop enforcement strategies tailored to the specific platform and type of defamatory content involved.
Revision Legal’s attorneys are experts at handling Internet defamation matters. If you need more information on defamation and the Internet, or if you need an Internet defamation expert to handle your case, contact Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Business Reputation and Online Review Platforms
Online review platforms — Yelp, Google Reviews, Glassdoor, TripAdvisor, and others — have created a new form of publication that can significantly damage business reputations. Unlike traditional media, review platforms allow anonymous or pseudonymous posters to publish statements to millions of potential customers with no editorial oversight and minimal accountability. For businesses that depend on local reputation and word-of-mouth — restaurants, hotels, healthcare practices, contractors, legal professionals — a false negative review can cause measurable economic harm.
Section 230 protects the platforms themselves from liability, but it does not protect the poster of a false review. When a false review causes business damage and the poster can be identified — either from account information, IP address data, or context clues — a defamation claim may be viable. Revision Legal’s attorneys have represented Michigan businesses in pursuing defamation claims against false reviewers, including through John Doe subpoena proceedings to identify anonymous posters. We also advise businesses on legitimate reputation management strategies that comply with FTC guidelines and platform terms of service.
If your business has been harmed by false online reviews or other forms of internet defamation, contact Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Why Work with Revision Legal?
Revision Legal is a national intellectual property and internet law firm that represents clients across the United States in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and internet law matters. We are a firm of specialists — not general practitioners who handle IP work as one component of a broad practice, but attorneys whose entire professional focus is on the intersection of technology, creativity, and commerce.
Our attorneys have handled cases at every level of the federal court system, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We manage trademark portfolios for hundreds of clients, ranging from individual entrepreneurs registering their first mark to publicly traded companies maintaining global trademark portfolios across dozens of countries.
We believe that access to expert legal counsel should not depend on the size of your organization. Revision Legal’s flat-fee service model for routine IP matters — trademark registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and standard licensing agreements — allows small businesses, startups, and individual creators to access the same quality of legal representation that larger companies receive, at a price that is predictable and fair. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we work efficiently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients while managing costs responsibly.
Whatever your intellectual property or internet law need — whether you are protecting a new brand, enforcing your rights against an infringer, defending against a legal demand, or navigating a complex licensing transaction — Revision Legal has the expertise to help. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
