Digital defamation — also called online defamation and internet defamation — is a serious legal issue that can get the defamer sued. Most internet defamation is libel. That is written defamation. But, given the prevalence of podcasts and video uploads to social media and internet platforms, online defamation can also be slanderous — that is verbal defamation. If you have been the victim of digital defamation, contact us here at Revision Legal. We are an experienced Defamation Law Firm and can help defend you, your company, your reputation, and your brand from defamation and punish those who have committed the defamation. In this article, we will explain the legal process under the California legal rules.

California Civil Code

California has enacted statutes that define defamation. California Civil Code, section 45, defines “libel” in a manner that is much broader than “writing.” The Code section reads as follows:

” … a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.”

The statute was enacted in 1872 but applies just as well to punish online defamation in the Age of the Internet. The following section — Cal. Civil Code, §46 — defines “slander” as:

“… a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:

1. Charges any person with a crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for a crime;

2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;

3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;

4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or

5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage”

Note that, for both libel and slander, the California Civil Code requires that libelous or slanderous statements be FALSE, not merely an opinion.

What Types of Legal Actions Can be Taken to Punish Internet Defamation?

If you are searching for a top-tier internet defamation law firm, our experienced defamation lawyers can evaluate the totality of the facts and circumstances and provide some options. Among the options include various types of litigation, particularly if the defamation caused an actual loss of business or the cancellation of a business relationship/contract. Various causes of action can be included in one lawsuit. Types of California litigation include:

• Defamation lawsuits – libel and slander versions or both
• Lawsuits for intentional interference with contractual relations or prospective business advantage
• Litigation related to personal and privacy rights such as misappropriation of likeness, false light litigation, intrusion into seclusion and solitude, etc.
• Trademark and brand tarnishment litigation
• And more

Litigation of these types is intended to compensate the victim for the harm caused by online defamation. But, in addition, other legal actions are targeted at removing online false statements. Efforts of these types include:

• Sending cease and desist letters
• Sending take-down notices to websites and social media platforms
• Filing complaints with websites and online platforms for violation of the privacy or other policies

Contact Revision Legal

For more information, call Revision Legal’s experienced internet attorneys today for assistance. You can contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.

California’s Retraction Statute and Its Strategic Importance

California law provides defendants with a powerful tool that is often overlooked: the retraction statute. Under California Civil Code § 48a, a plaintiff in a libel action against a newspaper, magazine, or radio or television broadcast corporation may recover only special damages — not general or presumed damages — if the defendant publishes a correction or retraction within the time and in the manner specified by the statute. This provision, while on its face applicable to traditional media, has been interpreted and applied in creative ways in the internet defamation context.

More importantly, California courts have recognized that promptly retracting or correcting online defamatory content can substantially affect the damages analysis even in cases outside the formal retraction statute. A defendant who moves quickly to remove or correct content — and documents that effort — presents a substantially stronger mitigation argument at trial than a defendant who leaves defamatory content online indefinitely after becoming aware of a claim. Experienced California defamation defense attorneys advise clients on retraction strategy from the moment of the first demand letter.

California’s Anti-SLAPP Statute in Internet Defamation Cases

California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 — the anti-SLAPP statute — is among the most powerful procedural weapons available to defamation defendants in the state. A defendant who demonstrates that the defamation claim arises from an act in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue can file a special motion to strike. If the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits, the case is dismissed and the defendant recovers attorney’s fees and costs.

In the internet context, California courts have applied the anti-SLAPP statute to online reviews, blog posts, and social media commentary. The key question is whether the statement was made in connection with a “public issue” or an “issue of public interest.” Courts have found that reviews of local businesses, commentary on public figures, and discussions of matters affecting a community can all constitute protected activity. Even private disputes aired in online forums have sometimes been found to qualify. The anti-SLAPP motion must be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, making early engagement of counsel critical.

Unmasking Anonymous Online Defamers in California

A distinctive challenge in internet defamation cases is that the most harmful content is frequently posted anonymously. California courts have developed a framework for balancing the First Amendment right to anonymous speech against the right of defamation victims to seek legal redress. The governing standard, articulated in Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (2008), requires the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of a legally sufficient defamation claim before a court will compel disclosure of the poster’s identity from an internet service provider or website host.

The practical process involves filing a Doe lawsuit, obtaining a court order authorizing discovery, and then subpoenaing the relevant internet service providers. ISPs typically respond to properly served subpoenas by producing subscriber information. Social media platforms present additional complexity: platforms like Google, Yelp, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter) have varying internal policies about responding to subpoenas, and some platforms resist disclosure more aggressively than others. An experienced California internet defamation attorney knows which platforms respond quickly and which require litigation to compel compliance.

Damages Available Under California Defamation Law

California allows recovery of multiple categories of damages in defamation cases. General damages compensate for harm to reputation and emotional distress that is presumed to flow from a defamatory per se statement. Special damages compensate for specific economic losses that can be proven with evidence — such as lost sales, cancelled contracts, or lost employment opportunities. Punitive damages are available upon a showing of malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code § 3294. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for its truth.

For business defamation — sometimes called trade libel — the plaintiff must generally prove actual economic loss as a specific element of the claim. Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2004), established that trade libel requires proof of actual damage to business interests, which distinguishes it from personal defamation where general damages may be presumed. This distinction has important strategic implications: defendants facing trade libel claims should scrutinize the plaintiff’s economic damage evidence carefully at the pleading and summary judgment stages.

Contact Revision Legal for California Internet Defamation Cases

Whether you are a defamation victim seeking to identify and hold accountable an anonymous online poster or a defendant facing a meritless defamation lawsuit, Revision Legal’s experienced attorneys are ready to help. We handle internet defamation cases throughout California and nationwide. Call us at 231-714-0100 or visit our contact page. The sooner you engage counsel after discovering defamatory content, the more legal options you have available.