Internet defamation can cause serious injury to those who are targeted and victims of online libel and slander have legal rights. Indeed, those rights can be vindicated in the judicial system by initiating defamation litigation. Libel and slander are two types of online defamation. The main difference is that libel is written defamation, while slander is defamation made verbally. During the early stages of the internet, most online defamation was libel — written — but with so much internet content being videos, podcasts and the like, online slander is now just as common as online libel. In general, defamation is the making of a false statement about someone (or business) that causes actual injury to the person (or business).

If you have been libeled or slandered online, to vindicate your rights, you will need to hire experienced internet defamation attorneys. The legal rules are complicated and you will have to act quickly. One reason is a legal doctrine called the single publication rule. Under the single publication rule, a libelous or slanderous statement posted online is legally considered to be a single statement made at the time of publication even though the statement might be read by many many people over several days or weeks and might itself be reposted, linked or otherwise rebroadcast.

This is the modern version of the old rule that only one defamation is made if the defamatory statement is made to two or more persons at the same time. That is, the legal action is for the single speaking/writing of the false statement, not for each of the hearing/reading of the false statement. The rule was naturally expanded as mass communication technology advanced. The single publication rule was applied first to newspapers, books and magazines. Even though the newspaper might have been read by hundreds of thousands of people, the newspaper could only be held liable once. The single publication rule was expanded to radio and television and now applies with equal force to online defamation, internet slander, and internet libel.

Because of the single publication rule for online defamation, as noted, it is important to act quickly to begin defamation litigation. In most states, there is only a one year statute of limitations for filing an online defamation lawsuit. A “statute of limitations” is a strict deadline by which the lawsuit must be filed with the Clerk of Court. The time period begins “ticking” from the first publication of the online defamation. In general, the time period runs even though the person or business libeled or slandered by the online content does not learn of the online defamation until several months later. Sometimes the running of the statute of limitations can be “tolled” — halted temporarily. But that is rare. There is also a legal doctrine called “republication” which is considered a separate incidence of online defamation which creates a new and separate basis for filing a defamation lawsuit.

As can be seen, you will need a proven internet defamation attorney to help.

Contact Revision Legal

If you need an experienced team of internet defamation attorneys, call Revision Legal at 231-714-0100. We are internet and social media influence attorneys with proven experience with IP protection, contract law and complex litigation. We are lawyers specializing in internet law.

How the Single Publication Rule Applies to Online Defamation

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577A codifies the single publication rule, and it has been adopted by the vast majority of states. Under this rule, the cause of action for defamation accrues — and the statute of limitations begins running — on the date of first publication of the defamatory content. For online defamation, courts have generally held that publication occurs when the content is first posted and made accessible to third parties. Courts have specifically rejected arguments that each individual “view” or “click” constitutes a new publication that restarts the statute of limitations clock. See, e.g., Firth v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 365 (2002), where New York’s highest court held that the posting of defamatory content on a website triggered the single publication rule and the one-year limitation period began from the date of posting.

The key practical consequence of the single publication rule is that defamation plaintiffs cannot wait to bring their claim simply because the defamatory content remains online and continues to be viewed. The damage to your reputation compounds every day the content remains up, but your legal window to act does not expand with it.

The “Republication” Exception to the Single Publication Rule

There is a narrow but important exception to the single publication rule: republication. When a defendant takes affirmative steps to re-publish defamatory content — for example, by reposting it to a new platform, incorporating it into a new article, or substantially modifying it and posting the modified version — courts in most jurisdictions treat the republication as a new and separate act of defamation, triggering a new statute of limitations period. The mere passage of time during which the original post remains accessible does not constitute republication. But active redistribution — sharing, resharing with new commentary, or posting to additional platforms — can restart the clock and create new liability for the defendant.

From a strategic standpoint, this exception matters. If a defamatory post about you or your business was originally made outside the statute of limitations period but was recently reshared, reposted, or updated with new false content by the defendant, you may still have a viable defamation claim based on the republication. An experienced internet defamation attorney will analyze the timeline carefully to identify all actionable publications and republications.

Discovery of Defamation and the Discovery Rule

A minority of states apply a “discovery rule” to defamation claims, under which the statute of limitations does not begin running until the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the defamatory publication. California, for example, applies a discovery rule to some defamation claims. However, most states that have considered the issue have declined to apply the discovery rule to defamation, finding that the policies underlying the single publication rule — providing defendants certainty that stale claims will not be revived — outweigh the hardship to plaintiffs who were unaware of the defamation. The interplay between the single publication rule and any applicable discovery rule is a jurisdiction-specific question that requires legal analysis of the law of the state where you plan to file suit.

If you believe you have been defamed online, contact Revision Legal immediately. Our internet defamation lawyers will assess the statute of limitations in your case, evaluate whether the single publication rule bars any portion of your claim, and identify all available legal remedies. Time is critical — do not delay.