Basically, if Joe suspects Andy of libel, Joe should be able to prove that Andy told a lie about Joe to a third party, and that the lie Andy told caused Joe harm.
There are some exceptions to this basic premise that can prevent a case from being successful. State laws vary, but in many cases, there are situations in which Andy can claim he had the right to tell that harmful untruth about Joe. For instance, if Andy was testifying in a trial or before a legislative body, his statements would be under oath, and so presumed to be true. Therefore, Andy’s statement could not be defamatory because defamation, by definition, has to involve an untruth. Or, if Andy was talking to his spouse in the course of telling a lie about Joe, Joe could not use that conversation to prove defamation. Expressions of opinion are also not considered to be defamation. If Andy said that Joe’s shoes were the ugliest in the world, Andy could not be held liable for defamation because his opinion of Joe’s shoes is just that: opinion. All of these examples fall under the category of “absolute privileges.”
The internet has transformed defamation law in ways courts and legislatures are still working through. A statement that once might have reached a few hundred readers in a local newspaper can now reach millions within hours, be indexed by search engines, and persist indefinitely. This permanent accessibility creates unique legal challenges:
Most states apply the single publication rule to online defamation: the statute of limitations begins running when content is first published, not each time someone views it or each time it is republished by a third party. In Michigan, the statute of limitations for defamation is three years (MCL 600.5805). This means a statement posted in 2020 generally cannot be the basis for a lawsuit filed in 2024, even if it is still visible and causing harm. Acting promptly when you discover defamatory content online is essential.
The internet enables anonymous publication, which complicates defamation litigation. When a defamatory statement is posted under a pseudonym or anonymous account, the plaintiff must identify the poster before they can be sued. The standard process involves filing a “John Doe” lawsuit and serving a subpoena on the platform or internet service provider that has the relevant account records. Courts require plaintiffs to meet a minimum evidentiary threshold before compelling disclosure of an anonymous speaker’s identity — a balance between the plaintiff’s right to redress and the First Amendment’s protection of anonymous speech articulated in cases like Dendrite International v. Doe.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) immunizes online platforms from liability for content posted by their users. This means you cannot sue Yelp, Google, Reddit, or Twitter for hosting defamatory content written by a user — you can only pursue the person who wrote it. Section 230 has been one of the most significant obstacles to online defamation victims, but it does not protect the original author of the defamatory statement, and it does not prevent courts from ordering platforms to remove content pursuant to a valid injunction obtained against the poster.
Some categories of false statements are considered defamatory per se — meaning the law presumes harm without requiring the plaintiff to prove specific damages. In Michigan, statements that are defamatory per se include: (1) statements that a person committed a crime; (2) statements that impute a loathsome disease; (3) statements that injure a person in his or her business, trade, or profession; and (4) statements that impute sexual misconduct. Online accusations of criminal behavior, fraud, or professional incompetence — common in negative review campaigns and harassment efforts — frequently fall into the defamation per se category.
If you believe you are the target of online defamation, the first step is to preserve evidence. Online content can be deleted, edited, or taken down at any time. Before consulting a lawyer, take the following steps:
The most immediate goal in most online defamation cases is removing the content, not waiting for a judgment. Courts can issue temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions compelling removal while a defamation case is pending, provided the plaintiff can show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a balance of equities favoring injunctive relief. In cases of clear-cut defamation, these standards are met.
Search engine suppression is another tool: Google’s legal removal tool allows certain categories of content — including court-ordered removals and doxxing — to be de-indexed from search results. Even if content cannot be removed from the source, removing it from search results substantially limits its reach.
Revision Legal’s internet lawyers handle online defamation and libel cases for individuals and businesses. We identify anonymous defendants, pursue content removal, and litigate defamation claims in Michigan courts and federal courts across the country. If you are facing an online defamation problem, contact us at 855-473-8474 or complete the contact form on this page as soon as possible — delays in evidence preservation can significantly complicate your case.
Defamation and false light invasion of privacy are related but distinct legal claims for harmful false statements. Here’s how they differ and what plaintiffs must prove to win.
Read more about Defamation and False Light Invasion of Privacy
Slander and libel are the two forms of defamation, one spoken and one written. Here’s how defamation law defines each, what plaintiffs must prove, and what remedies are available.
Read more about What Is Slander and Libel? Understanding Defamation
Getting defamatory content removed from ComplaintsBoard and RipOffReport requires legal action or platform procedures. Here’s how to pursue removal of false online reviews.
Read more about Removing Defamation from Review Sites