Basically, the kind of lawyer that would take on a cyberbullying and defamation case would be a top-rated defamation and/or negligence lawyer with experience in complex litigation cases. Revision Legal has such lawyers and we would be pleased to have you contact us for a consultation. We can be reached at 231-714-0100 or 855-473-8474.

Deep experience with complex litigation is necessary since cyberbullying and defamation involve complex legal issues. While cyberbullying and defamation are similar, they are separate legal causes of action. Often, the facts of a given case will combine elements, but it will be necessary to separate the facts into separate legal theories (the causes of action). These specific legal elements vary from state to state, and some states have statutes and laws that apply. Thus, it will be necessary to have knowledge of laws and legal elements in the state where the cyberbullying or defamation occurred.

Cyberbullying is a type of tortious conduct handled under the doctrine of negligence. “Tortious” is a legal word meaning some harm inflicted upon another without just cause. An automobile accident is a type of tort where a driver causes injury because of the accident. Usually, something like an accident is unintentional. Thus, the legal cause of action is negligence. But there is also intentional tortious conduct. Cyberbullying falls in that category. Cyberbullying is usually litigated as the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

As noted, the specifics will vary from state to state, but generally, intentional infliction of emotional distress has four legal elements that must be proven:

• The defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous
• The defendant intended to cause emotional distress, or acted with reckless disregard for the probability of causing emotional distress
• The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress
• The defendant’s conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress

Cyberbullying vs. Defamation: The Legal Distinction

Cyberbullying and defamation overlap factually—both involve harmful online conduct targeting a specific person—but they are distinct legal claims with different elements and different remedies. Understanding the distinction is essential because different evidence supports each claim, and the wrong theory can cause an otherwise meritorious case to fail on the merits.

Defamation requires a false statement of fact. If the harmful online content is an expression of opinion—“I think John is a bad person”—it is not defamation regardless of how hurtful it is, because expressions of opinion cannot be proven true or false. Defamation requires a statement that is objectively verifiable as false. Cyberbullying, pursued as intentional infliction of emotional distress, does not require a false statement. Extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional distress can be actionable even if every individual statement is technically true. This distinction means that in cases where the harasser is spreading true but devastating personal information—private photographs, embarrassing but accurate disclosures about mental health history, sexual orientation disclosures made without consent—the IIED theory may be the only viable civil claim.

State Cyberbullying Statutes

All 50 states have enacted some form of anti-bullying legislation, and many specifically address cyberbullying. These statutes vary widely in scope, enforcement mechanisms, and the private rights of action they create. Michigan’s Revised School Code requires school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies, and Michigan Penal Code § 750.411s makes it a misdemeanor to make a false report of child abuse or neglect with the intent to harm a specific person—a provision sometimes applied in harassment contexts. Some states have criminal cyberbullying statutes that create misdemeanor or felony liability for online harassment that causes fear of physical harm or substantial emotional distress.

For adults, criminal cyberbullying statutes are less developed. The federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, covers cyberstalking and provides criminal penalties for using electronic communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress or to place a person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Federal criminal prosecution under this statute is typically reserved for severe, sustained harassment campaigns. For most adult cyberbullying victims, civil litigation is the primary legal remedy.

Suing Anonymous Online Harassers

One of the primary obstacles in cyberbullying and online defamation cases is identifying the person responsible when they are posting anonymously or under a pseudonym. The legal tool for this is the “John Doe” lawsuit: the plaintiff files suit against an unknown defendant and then uses the discovery process to subpoena the platform, internet service provider, or other intermediary to obtain the poster’s identity.

Courts have developed a framework for evaluating these subpoenas to balance the plaintiff’s right to redress against the anonymous speaker’s First Amendment rights. In most jurisdictions, the plaintiff must make a threshold showing that the claim has legal merit and that the requested identifying information is necessary and not available through other means. Platforms typically require valid legal process—a court order or a formal subpoena—before disclosing user information. Some platforms resist even valid subpoenas and require court enforcement. An experienced internet law attorney can navigate this process, which can take weeks or months but is often the only path to identifying the defendant.

Section 230 and Platform Liability for Cyberbullying

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunizes online platforms from civil liability for third-party content. This means that if someone uses social media to cyberbully or defame you, you generally cannot sue the platform for hosting or publishing that content—your claim must be directed at the individual poster. Section 230 immunity is broad; it has been applied to protect platforms even in cases involving severe harassment. Legislative efforts to narrow Section 230 have gained traction in Congress, but as of the current date, the immunity remains largely intact.

There are limited exceptions. Section 230 does not immunize platforms from federal criminal liability, intellectual property claims, or claims arising under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It also does not protect platforms that materially contribute to the development of the specific unlawful content—platforms that actively edit, curate, or amplify specific harmful posts may lose immunity in that narrow context. These exceptions rarely apply to typical cyberbullying fact patterns, but an attorney familiar with Section 230 litigation can evaluate whether any exceptions might apply in a specific case.

If you or someone you know is the victim of cyberbullying or online defamation, Revision Legal’s attorneys handle these cases with the experience and urgency they require. Call us at 231-714-0100 or 855-473-8474.