California Defamation Attorney – Online Defamation and Libel Litigation

About the author: Scott Lesowitz is a 2007 Harvard Law School graduate and former Assistant United States Attorney whose civil litigation practice is based in Southern California. Scott is a founding partner of Lesowitz Gebelin LLP. Scott lives in San Diego with his wife, three children, and bernedoodle. Scott represents clients throughout California, including San Diego, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties.

As a California defamation attorney with significant experience litigating matters involving online defamation for both plaintiffs and defendants, I have seen both how false statements can devastate a person or business and, unfortunately, how frivolous claims of defamation can be used to silence critics.

A defamation lawsuit can only target false assertions of fact. Whether a statement is a false assertion of fact, or merely opinion is often a legally complex and factually nuanced question. And the stakes of making an incorrect determination about whether a statement may be defamatory or not are high. California has a strong anti-SLAPP statute. If the plaintiff brings a claim that a court finds lack merit, the court may well grant an anti-SLAPP motion dismissing the lawsuit and order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees.

Furthermore, a plaintiff often wishes to have defamatory statements removed from the internet. This process can be tricky.

If you are involved in a defamation dispute in California—whether you are seeking to enforce your rights against lies being spread about you or your business or are defending against defamation allegations—I welcome you to contact me to discuss the matter. I have extensive experience litigating online defamation matters and with litigating anti-SLAPP motions, both for plaintiffs and for defendants. Below is a brief overview of three key issues in online defamation cases in California: whether statements are defamatory, whether the speaker receives special constitutional or statutory protections, and the removal of defamatory statements from the internet. This is not a complete overview, and this is in no way a substitute for personal legal advice from an attorney.

Only False Assertions of Fact May Be Defamatory

False statements of fact made on the internet may constitute defamation. (FYI, written defamation is known as “libel,” and spoken defamation is “slander.” Posts on the internet would be considered libel.)

However, one will not be found liable for defamation for merely making statements that are negative, mean, or unfair unless these statements contain a false assertion of fact. A pure statement of opinion cannot constitute defamation.

However, an opinion that contains an implied false assertion of fact may constitute defamation. The key question is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.

For example, in Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court, a disgruntled former customer left a negative review of an accountant. The court noted that the review would merely constitute opinion if the post only stated that it was too “bad there is no zero star option! I made the mistake of using them and had an absolute nightmare.” However, because the review went further, the court found the post to contain potentially defamatory assertions of fact. For example, the statement, “if you dare to complain get ready to be screamed at, verbally harassed and threatened with legal action,” implied an assertion of fact that the poster was indeed screamed at and treated badly without justification.

As another example of a case involving a Yelp review, in Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios, a tenant posted a very negative review of his landlord on Yelp. The court acknowledged that statements from the Yelp review such as that the landlord was a “sociopathic narcissist,” and “celebrates making the lives of tenants hell,” were merely hyperbolic opinions. However, the statement that the “new owners’ noise, intrusions, and other abhorrent behaviors (likely) contributed to the death of three tenants (Pat, Mary, & John)… [and] the departure of eight more, (units 1001, 902, 802, 801, 702, 701, 602, 502) in very short order,” went beyond mere opinion into potentially defamatory assertions of fact. That the speaker used the word “likely” was found not to insulate him from liability.

[Sources: Cocoa AJ Holdings, LLC v. Schneider, 115 Cal.App.5th 980 (2025); Wang v. Peletta, 112 Cal.App.5th 478 (2025); Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.5th 1 (2017); Bently Reserve LP v. Papaliolios, 218 Cal.App.4th 418 (2013); Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc., 116 Cal.App.4th 375, 385 (2004).]

Constitutional and Statutory Protections for Alleged Defamation – Anti-SLAPP Motions

The First Amendment of the Constitution does not cover false statements of fact. However, courts recognize that a free press is vital and that fear of lawsuits for routine mistakes would chill the media’s reporting. Therefore, courts provide constitutional protections for speakers in certain contexts. To prevent this possible self-censorship, courts provide protections to those who speak about matters or issues of public interest or concern. These protections generally may apply to any speaker, not merely traditional news outlets.

The maximum level of protection is provided for speech about a public figure regarding a matter of public concern. For such speech, a speaker may only be found liable and have to pay money damages if the speaker acted “with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Note that a public figure can include a wide variety of publicly known people including politicians, celebrities, well-known business figures, and athletes. It may also include a “limited purpose public figure” who has purposefully and prominently participated in a matter of public concern.

As opposed to speech about a public figure, speech about a private figure related to a matter of public concern receives a lower level of constitutional protection. A speaker may not be found liable for speech about a private figure related to a matter of public concern unless the speaker acted negligently when making the statement. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974). It is much more likely that a speaker will be found to have acted negligently than to have acted with “actual malice.”

The Supreme Court of California takes the view that all defamation plaintiffs must prove at least negligence to recover damages.

In addition to constitutional protections, California state law provides more protections for certain types of speech. There are two levels of protection provided under state law: absolute privilege and qualified privilege.

Statements that are absolutely privileged may never be the subject of a defamation lawsuit. With only limited exceptions, absolute privilege is extended to assertions made in legal proceedings or as part of the carrying out of governmental duties.

With exceptions, speech made in response to a request for information receives a qualified privilege. Examples include statements an employer makes about a former employee to a prospective employer and credit reports. Speech protected by a qualified privilege may only be subjected to civil liability if the speaker “was motivated by hatred or ill will” or if the speaker “lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication and therefore acted in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.”

[Sources: Cal.Civ.Code § 47; Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461 (2025); Bui v. Ngo, 101 Cal.App.5th 1061 (2024); McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc., 212 Cal.App.4th 1510 (2013); Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13 (2007); Lundquist v. Reusser, 7 Cal.4th 1193 (1994); Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990); Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal.3d 711 (in bank, 1989); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); CACI 1704.]

Removing Defamatory Statements from the Internet

If someone who has been defamed wins a lawsuit, the judge may issue a court order known as an injunction. The judge can order the defendant (person who was sued) not to repeat the assertions in the future and, also, that he or she must remove the defamatory statements from the internet. A violation of an injunction may lead to a finding of contempt of court and severe penalties.

However, sometimes the defendant refuses to remove the offending posts. Internet service providers do not have to remove the defamatory posts themselves. However, many (but not all) ISPs will voluntarily remove a post if it contains statements that a court found to be defamatory.

Finally, please note that California has a strong anti-SLAPP statute that requires certain unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ attorneys’ fees. Therefore, anyone contemplating suing for defamation must be cautious, and an experienced attorney is vital. As a California defamation attorney, I am highly familiar with anti-SLAPP motions. For more information, please see my article on anti-SLAPP motions.

Because defamation claims in California carry significant legal and financial risk—particularly under the anti-SLAPP statute—anyone considering bringing or defending such a claim should seek experienced counsel early.

[Sources: California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16; Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 109 Cal.App.5th 635 (2025); Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal.5th 522 (2018); Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal.4th 1141 (2007).]

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING – PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE SIMILAR OUTCOMES IN THE FUTURE. YOUR USE OF THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THIS DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE.