Defamation claims in the U.S. courts are growing exponentially…
Given the broad and instant reach of television and the Internet, along with the heightened societal tensions both political, economic and pandemic related, defamation claims in the U.S. courts are growing exponentially. The buzz surrounding defamation claims against Rudy Giuliani, Fox News, and others related to the 2020 election have also generated misconceptions about the bases and viability of defamation claims.
So when could you face liability for defamation and how do you avoid liability?
Elements of a Defamation Claim
In England, defamation claims are far more common because rulings of the English legal system are far more supportive of defamation claims than the U.S. courts. In basic terms, defamation is defined under U.S. law as any false statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation and published “with fault” (negligence or malice). As set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, “A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.”
There are several categories of defamation claims, but they all have similar basic requirements
A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
An unprivileged publication to a third party;
Fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.
With regard to Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit, the broad public broadcasting of Giuliani’s accusations against Dominion, while yet to be proven defamatory in a court of law by Dominion, do appear, on their surface, to fit the definition of several of the defamation causes of action if false: injury to Dominion’s reputation, injurious falsehood, slander (oral), and libel (if written). Additional defamation causes that might apply here include product disparagement, negligent misrepresentation causing harm, and words negligently spoken.
As highlighted above, simply “publishing” an untrue accusation that fits within the legal defamation definitions, could result in two billion dollars in damages (plus costs). “Publishing” could mean as little as just uttering your words in the hearing of a third party, or in a television interview on a talk show or to a newspaper reporter. Of course, obtaining a significant damages award normally requires convincing a judge and jury of the defendant’s liability under the law and the plaintiff’s damages and right to recovery. If the defendant’s acts are so repulsive as to so strongly offend as to merit punitive damages, or are shown to affect a business reputation, damages could be awarded on a finding of libel or slander per se, with or without proof of actual damages.
Cyber Defamation Claims
Given the proliferation of social media and online forums, defamation claims increasingly involve statements made online. While the elements are essentially the same, proving online defamation can be challenging, largely due to the nature of the Internet.
Online speech is often extremely informal, and Internet users often use acronyms, hyperbole, and relaxed grammar. While this may be used to suggest that alleged defamatory statements are merely opinions rather than actionable statements of fact, courts have declined to excuse otherwise defamatory statements simply because they were made via the Internet.
With regard to holding “publishers” accountable for defamatory statements, courts have held that social media and blog hosting platforms can’t be liable for the statements of their users. Pursuant to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), “[n]o 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.”
Under Section 230 of the CDA, “interactive computer service” is defined as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” Meanwhile, an “information content provider” is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.”
Section 230 provides broad immunity to online platforms. However, in recent years, the statutory defense has become targeted for removal and is currently under review in Congress and the courts.
Truth Is the Best Defense
Truth is a complete defense to defamation claims. So, if you consistently speak the truth, you arguably should have little to worry about when it comes to defamation claims, except for a vindictive and baseless complaint. Of course, in addition to the truth of the statement complained of. There are other defenses available against a defamation claim. For example, because defamation claims must involve false statements of fact, statements of opinion are generally not actionable. In New Jersey, statements of opinion are only actionable if they imply defamatory facts on which the defendant bases his statement. As the court explained in Karnell v. Campbell, 206 N.J. Super. 81, 89 (App. Div. 1985), “Expressions of opinion, no matter how insulting, are actionable only if they imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts on which the opinion was based. While the opinion cannot be false, those undisclosed defamatory facts may be, thus subjecting the publisher of the opinion to liability.”
Privileged statements, such as those made to an attorney or doctor or made by a witness during a legal proceeding, are also not considered defamatory. The rationale is to promote people to be honest and forthcoming without fear of legal action. To defend against a claim of defamation, defendants may also argue that the statements at issue were “fair comment” on a matter of public interest. In Dairy Stores Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co. the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the need for information to flow freely and the desirability of commentary on matters of legitimate public concern required the extension of the fair comment privilege, beyond statements of opinion, to include statements of fact and that the defense could only be overcome by proof of actual malice.
Key Takeaway
The bottom line remains that it is best to be careful what you say and how you say it, both in the words you choose to use and the forum in which you choose to communicate.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Dan Brecher or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
How to Avoid a Lawsuit for Defamation
Author: Dan Brecher
Defamation claims in the U.S. courts are growing exponentially…
Given the broad and instant reach of television and the Internet, along with the heightened societal tensions both political, economic and pandemic related, defamation claims in the U.S. courts are growing exponentially. The buzz surrounding defamation claims against Rudy Giuliani, Fox News, and others related to the 2020 election have also generated misconceptions about the bases and viability of defamation claims.
So when could you face liability for defamation and how do you avoid liability?
Elements of a Defamation Claim
In England, defamation claims are far more common because rulings of the English legal system are far more supportive of defamation claims than the U.S. courts. In basic terms, defamation is defined under U.S. law as any false statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation and published “with fault” (negligence or malice). As set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, “A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.”
There are several categories of defamation claims, but they all have similar basic requirements
A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
An unprivileged publication to a third party;
Fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.
With regard to Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit, the broad public broadcasting of Giuliani’s accusations against Dominion, while yet to be proven defamatory in a court of law by Dominion, do appear, on their surface, to fit the definition of several of the defamation causes of action if false: injury to Dominion’s reputation, injurious falsehood, slander (oral), and libel (if written). Additional defamation causes that might apply here include product disparagement, negligent misrepresentation causing harm, and words negligently spoken.
As highlighted above, simply “publishing” an untrue accusation that fits within the legal defamation definitions, could result in two billion dollars in damages (plus costs). “Publishing” could mean as little as just uttering your words in the hearing of a third party, or in a television interview on a talk show or to a newspaper reporter. Of course, obtaining a significant damages award normally requires convincing a judge and jury of the defendant’s liability under the law and the plaintiff’s damages and right to recovery. If the defendant’s acts are so repulsive as to so strongly offend as to merit punitive damages, or are shown to affect a business reputation, damages could be awarded on a finding of libel or slander per se, with or without proof of actual damages.
Cyber Defamation Claims
Given the proliferation of social media and online forums, defamation claims increasingly involve statements made online. While the elements are essentially the same, proving online defamation can be challenging, largely due to the nature of the Internet.
Online speech is often extremely informal, and Internet users often use acronyms, hyperbole, and relaxed grammar. While this may be used to suggest that alleged defamatory statements are merely opinions rather than actionable statements of fact, courts have declined to excuse otherwise defamatory statements simply because they were made via the Internet.
With regard to holding “publishers” accountable for defamatory statements, courts have held that social media and blog hosting platforms can’t be liable for the statements of their users. Pursuant to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), “[n]o 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.”
Under Section 230 of the CDA, “interactive computer service” is defined as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” Meanwhile, an “information content provider” is “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.”
Section 230 provides broad immunity to online platforms. However, in recent years, the statutory defense has become targeted for removal and is currently under review in Congress and the courts.
Truth Is the Best Defense
Truth is a complete defense to defamation claims. So, if you consistently speak the truth, you arguably should have little to worry about when it comes to defamation claims, except for a vindictive and baseless complaint. Of course, in addition to the truth of the statement complained of. There are other defenses available against a defamation claim. For example, because defamation claims must involve false statements of fact, statements of opinion are generally not actionable. In New Jersey, statements of opinion are only actionable if they imply defamatory facts on which the defendant bases his statement. As the court explained in Karnell v. Campbell, 206 N.J. Super. 81, 89 (App. Div. 1985), “Expressions of opinion, no matter how insulting, are actionable only if they imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts on which the opinion was based. While the opinion cannot be false, those undisclosed defamatory facts may be, thus subjecting the publisher of the opinion to liability.”
Privileged statements, such as those made to an attorney or doctor or made by a witness during a legal proceeding, are also not considered defamatory. The rationale is to promote people to be honest and forthcoming without fear of legal action. To defend against a claim of defamation, defendants may also argue that the statements at issue were “fair comment” on a matter of public interest. In Dairy Stores Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co. the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the need for information to flow freely and the desirability of commentary on matters of legitimate public concern required the extension of the fair comment privilege, beyond statements of opinion, to include statements of fact and that the defense could only be overcome by proof of actual malice.
Key Takeaway
The bottom line remains that it is best to be careful what you say and how you say it, both in the words you choose to use and the forum in which you choose to communicate.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Dan Brecher or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
