Revision Legal’s Internet defamation lawyers have handled Internet defamation matters for clients around the country. In the modern era, Internet defamation, if not addressed, can cause you significant harm. It can prevent you from obtaining employment, it can dissuade clients, and it can harm your business. Worse, if you do not take steps to have Internet defamation removed, it will not go away.
Our Internet defamation lawyers not only understand the law surrounding Internet defamation, including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but we also understand the underlying technology of the Internet. This allows our lawyers to assess your situation and provide you with advice on how to have defamatory content permanently removed from the Internet.
If you are faced with an Internet defamation issue, contact our Internet defamation lawyers today at 855-473-8474.
Internet defamation — also called online defamation — occurs when someone publishes a false statement of fact about you online that damages your reputation. Defamatory statements can appear on review platforms such as Google, Yelp, or Trustpilot; on social media platforms including Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn; on anonymous message boards such as Reddit; in blog posts; in online news articles; or in any other publicly accessible online medium.
To establish a defamation claim under Michigan law and the law of most states, a plaintiff must generally prove four elements:
Michigan courts have long recognized that per se defamation — statements that are defamatory on their face — include false statements that a person has committed a crime, has a loathsome disease, is unfit for their profession or business, or has engaged in sexual misconduct. Gonyea v. Motor Parts Federal Credit Union, 192 Mich. App. 74 (1991). In per se cases, damages are presumed without specific proof of financial harm.
One of the most important — and most misunderstood — statutes in online defamation law is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 provides broad immunity to online platforms for content posted by their users. Under Section 230(c)(1), “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
In practical terms, this means Google, Facebook, Yelp, Reddit, and similar platforms generally cannot be held liable for defamatory content posted by their users. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) was one of the first cases to broadly interpret this immunity. Courts across the country have consistently extended that immunity in subsequent decisions.
This does not mean you are without recourse. It means your claim must be directed at the individual who posted the content, not the platform. Once a judgment is obtained against the individual author, platforms will often deindex or remove content in response to a court order.
A common challenge in Internet defamation cases is that the person who posted the content did so anonymously or under a pseudonym. This does not make the case unwinnable. Defamation plaintiffs can file a “John Doe” lawsuit and then serve a subpoena on the relevant platform to compel disclosure of the poster’s identifying information — including IP addresses, email addresses, and account registration data.
Courts apply a balancing test before ordering disclosure, weighing the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights against the defendant’s right to anonymous speech. In Michigan, courts look at whether the plaintiff has stated a viable defamation claim and whether the need for the information outweighs the defendant’s interest in anonymity. Once identity is established, the case proceeds against the named individual.
Revision Legal’s attorneys have significant experience obtaining subpoenas in John Doe defamation cases and compelling disclosure from major platforms, hosting companies, and internet service providers.
Successful defamation plaintiffs may be entitled to several categories of relief:
A judgment can also be used to request content removal or deindexing directly from search engines. Google, for example, has a legal removal tool that accepts court orders as the basis for removing URLs from its search index. This practical remedy often delivers the most immediate reputational relief.
Businesses, not just individuals, can be the target of online defamation. False statements made about a business’s products, services, financial condition, or operations can constitute trade libel — also known as product disparagement or injurious falsehood. Under Michigan law, a business asserting trade libel must generally show that the defendant published a false and disparaging statement, did so with malice or reckless disregard for the truth, and that the statement caused the business to lose identifiable customers or business revenue.
Common scenarios include a competitor posting false reviews, a disgruntled former employee fabricating misconduct allegations, or a third party spreading false claims about product safety or quality. These claims, when pursued aggressively, can result in substantial damages and injunctive relief that stops the campaign entirely.
Internet defamation cases require a lawyer who understands more than just defamation doctrine. You need counsel who understands how content is cached, indexed, and mirrored; how to trace an IP address to an individual; how subpoenas to technology companies are structured and enforced; and how platforms respond to legal requests.
Revision Legal’s Internet defamation attorneys combine substantive legal knowledge with deep familiarity with how the modern internet operates. We have obtained content removal, identified anonymous posters, obtained monetary judgments, and negotiated settlements that result in the permanent removal of damaging content.
If you are facing Internet defamation, the longer you wait, the more the content spreads and the harder it becomes to contain the damage. Contact Revision Legal’s Internet defamation lawyers today at 855-473-8474 or reach out through our website for a consultation.
Facebook agreed to pay $550 million to settle a class action lawsuit under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Here’s what the case means for biometric data law.
Read more about Facebook’s $550M Illinois Biometric Settlement
Seizing an infringer’s domain name is one of the most effective ways to stop IP theft online. Here’s how courts order domain transfers and what rights holders need to show.
Read more about Seizing an Infringer’s Domain to Stop Infringement
Recent court decisions on what counts as an ‘autodialer’ under the TCPA suggest restrictions may be loosening. Here’s what businesses using automated texts need to know.
Read more about TCPA Autodialer Decisions: Are Restrictions Easing?