# New Zealand defamation online: claims, defenses, clock

New Zealand defamation online explained: the Defamation Act 1992, the two-year clock, the company rule and the Harmful Digital Communications route.

---


New Zealand defamation online is governed by the Defamation Act 1992, and a person harmed by a false post has a second, separate route under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. The first protects reputation and ends in a court of general jurisdiction; the second protects against serious emotional distress and runs through an approved agency and the District Court. Which one fits depends on who you are, what was said and what you want to happen to the post.

Three points decide most files: an individual need not prove special damage but a company must prove money loss; truth and honest opinion are the defendant's to plead; and the Limitation Act 2010 gives defamation claims a short, two-year clock.

This guide covers the New Zealand tests, the two routes and how to choose between them. It is information, not legal advice; a New Zealand lawyer decides what applies to your facts. We read the [Defamation Act 1992](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/105/en/latest/) (version as at 5 April 2026) and the [Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html) (version as at 9 March 2022) on legislation.govt.nz, and the [Limitation Act 2010](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/110/en/latest/) (version as at 1 July 2022), sections 11, 14 and 15. Where a page or a case could not be read, the text says so.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>The Defamation Act 1992 lets an individual sue without proving special damage. A company must allege and prove actual or likely pecuniary loss, or its claim fails.</li><li>Truth, honest opinion, privilege, innocent dissemination and consent are the main defenses. A retraction or reply request to a news medium has a five working day window.</li><li>The Harmful Digital Communications Act is a different tool: it is for individuals, it measures serious emotional distress, and it can order a host to take material down.</li><li>The Limitation Act 2010 gives defamation claims a two-year period, with a two-year late knowledge period for those who could not have known earlier. Keep proof of the date you first saw the post.</li><li>Neither Act changes search results by itself. A court order against content is what you then take to the host or the search engine.</li></ul></div>

<figure class="keyfacts">
<div class="keyfacts-grid">
<div><b>2 years</b><span>the period section 15 of the Limitation Act 2010 sets for defamation claims, in place of the usual 6 years</span></div>
<div><b>5 working days</b><span>the window to ask a news medium for a retraction or reply, from when you became aware</span></div>
<div><b>48 hours</b><span>the time an online content host has to notify the author once a valid complaint arrives, to keep its protection</span></div>
</div>
<p class="fig-src">Sources: Limitation Act 2010 sections 11 and 15, Defamation Act 1992 section 25, and Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 section 24, as read on legislation.govt.nz.</p>
</figure>

## What counts as defamation online in New Zealand

Defamation in the Act includes both libel and slander, so a post, a comment, a video caption and a spoken clip all sit under the same word. Section 4 says it is not necessary to allege or prove special damage in defamation proceedings. In plain terms, you do not need a lost contract in hand before you can sue as an individual.

The Act we read does not define "defamatory" in the interpretation section. The core idea comes from the general law, which we did not read case by case for this guide. In general terms, a statement is defamatory when it lowers a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or exposes them to contempt or ridicule. Treat that as the shape of the test, and ask counsel how a New Zealand court applies it to your wording.

Two practical points follow. First, section 7 says one publication is one cause of action, however many imputations it carries. An imputation is the meaning a reader takes from the words, such as "this builder takes deposits and disappears". You plead the meanings you rely on, but one post gives one claim. Second, section 37 requires the plaintiff to specify the statements alleged to be defamatory and untrue and the meanings relied on. Vague anger about a post is not a pleading.

The statute sections we read contain no stand-alone serious harm threshold of the kind found in some other countries. The case law may add one, and we did not read it for this guide, so do not assume that any false post is worth a claim.

## Who can sue: individuals, companies and the rule that surprises business owners

An individual can sue over a false statement about them. A company or other body corporate faces a harder test. Section 6 says its claim fails unless it alleges and proves pecuniary loss, actual or likely. A company that cannot point to lost sales, cancelled orders or similar money loss does not get past that section.

A business should gather the numbers before any letter: orders lost after the post appeared, clients who cited it, inquiries that drop on the date. Be honest about causation; a drop with three possible causes is a weak exhibit.

The rule also separates the owner from the company. A post that names the company is the company's claim, with the money-loss requirement. A post that names the founder personally, or can only be read as being about them, is the founder's claim. A review of "the shop" is not automatically a statement about its owner, so the wording has to point to the person. By contrast with the company rules in some other countries, the New Zealand text turns on pecuniary loss, not on employee counts or a serious harm test.

## The defenses that decide most online disputes

The defendant carries the defenses, and the Act makes them specific.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Defense</th><th>What the Act says</th><th>Where it tends to fail online</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Truth (s 8)</strong></td><td>Succeeds if the imputations were true or not materially different from the truth, or the publication as a whole was in substance true</td><td>The author cannot prove a claim stated as fact; screenshots and records are missing</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Honest opinion (ss 9 to 11)</strong></td><td>Replaces fair comment; the opinion must be the defendant's genuine opinion; it does not fail merely because not every fact is proved true</td><td>The post is dressed as opinion but asserts facts ("he stole the money")</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Qualified privilege (ss 16 to 19)</strong></td><td>Protects listed matters and reports; fails if the defendant was predominantly motivated by ill will</td><td>The occasion was not one the Act lists, or the post was sent to far more people than the occasion needed</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Innocent dissemination (s 21)</strong></td><td>For those who published solely as a processor or distributor, without knowledge and without negligence</td><td>The host was told about the post and did nothing</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Consent (s 22)</strong></td><td>The plaintiff consented to the publication</td><td>Rarely run; consent is hard to prove for a public post</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

A statement can be harsh and still true, and the wording "not materially different from the truth" forgives small errors in detail. Test your own facts before you write to anyone: a truth defense can put your own records in the open.

Honest opinion is harder to apply online because a review mixes the two. "The service was slow and rude" is opinion on stated facts. "The owner is a fraud" is an allegation of fact in opinion clothing. The Act gives the defendant room when the opinion is genuine, and section 10(3) says malice does not defeat it. That is a notable gap between honest opinion and qualified privilege, where section 19 says ill will can defeat the defense. We did not read case law on where the line falls, so ask counsel to read the exact words.

## Who is the publisher when the words sit on a platform

The author of a post is the first defendant, and the easiest to understand. The harder question is whether the host, forum owner or page admin is also a publisher. The Act's answer is the innocent dissemination defense in section 21: a person who published solely as a processor or distributor is protected if they lacked knowledge and were not negligent.

A host that has received a clear notice about specific content loses the argument that it had no knowledge, which is why a precise notice helps. The section does not protect the person who writes the post. Case law on page owners, moderators and search engines was not read for this guide, so we do not state how a court would treat them.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act has its own host rule, covered below.

## The clock: two years under the Limitation Act, not the Defamation Act

The Defamation Act 1992 sets no general limitation period. Its time limits are procedural: five working days for a retraction request, ten working days for certain notices after a defense is served, 28 working days for related later proceedings over the same matter in newspapers, broadcasts or film, and a rule that a stalled case can be struck out after 12 months without a step.

The limitation period itself sits in the Limitation Act 2010 (version as at 1 July 2022). Section 11(1) gives a defendant a defence to a money claim filed at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission the claim is based on. Section 15 says that for a defamation claim, "6 years" in section 11(1) and "3 years" in section 11(3)(a) are each read as "2 years". For a defamation money claim, the starting point is therefore two years from the act, which for an online post means the publication.

There is a second route for a claimant with late knowledge. Under section 14, the late knowledge date is the date, after the start of the primary period, on which the claimant gained knowledge of specified facts, such as that the act occurred and that it was attributable to the defendant. The claimant must prove they neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known those facts at the start. Under section 11(3), read with section 15, the defence then applies to a claim filed at least 2 years after the late knowledge date, or at least 15 years after the act or omission. We did not read the provisions that govern claims for non-money relief such as an injunction, so ask counsel how the clock applies to the relief you want.

Record the date you first saw the post, with a dated capture, and diarize the deadline without waiting for an apology or negotiation. Do not assume that letters or negotiation pause the clock; ask counsel before relying on that.

Whether a repost restarts the clock was not answered in the provisions we read, and we did not read the case law; section 7 of the Defamation Act concerns causes of action, not time. For an old post shared again, ask counsel which publication is the target.

## Retraction, reply and correction: the remedies before judgment

Section 25 is the quickest tool against a news medium. A person defamed in a news medium can, not later than five working days after becoming aware of the publication, request a retraction for factual statements or a reply. Agreeing to publish can also involve paying costs and compensation for pecuniary loss.

If a case goes on, sections 26 and 27 let the court recommend a correction, including its content, timing and prominence. A defendant who follows the recommendation gets solicitor and client costs and bars other relief in those proceedings; one who does not may see the refusal counted when damages are assessed. Section 24 lets a plaintiff seek a declaration of liability, and if only a declaration and costs are sought and granted, the Act sets solicitor and client costs unless the court orders otherwise. Section 29 treats a published correction, retraction or apology as mitigation of damages.

Section 28 allows punitive damages only where the defendant acted in flagrant disregard of the plaintiff's rights, which is a high bar for an ordinary angry post.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Limit</span>
<h4>A declaration or a correction does not remove the page</h4>
<p>The remedies in sections 24 to 27 operate on the parties. Search results and cached copies change only when the host or the search engine acts on an order or a valid request, so plan that step separately.</p>
</aside>

## The Harmful Digital Communications Act: a different route for a different harm

The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 exists, in the words of section 3, to deter, prevent and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications, and to give victims a quick and efficient means of redress. Section 4 defines harm as serious emotional distress. That is a different yardstick from reputation, and it explains who the Act helps and who it does not.

The Act sets ten communication principles in section 6. A digital communication should not, among other things, disclose sensitive personal facts, be threatening, intimidating or menacing, be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the affected individual's position, be used to harass, make a false allegation, breach confidence or incite others to message an individual to cause them harm. Principle six, making a false allegation, is why the Act reaches some defamatory posts, but only where a principle is breached and distress results.

The procedure has a fixed order:

<figure class="fig">
<figcaption><b>How a Harmful Digital Communications Act complaint moves</b></figcaption>
<ol class="fig-steps">
<li><b>Complain to the Approved Agency</b>Under section 12(1), an individual, a parent or a school leader generally cannot apply to the court until the agency has received a complaint and had a reasonable opportunity to assess it. The Act does not name the agency: section 7 leaves the appointment to an Order in Council, so check who holds the role now.</li>
<li><b>Let the agency try to resolve it</b>Its functions in section 8 include advice, negotiation, mediation and persuasion. It may refuse or stop an investigation into a trivial, frivolous or vexatious complaint.</li>
<li><b>Apply to the District Court</b>Section 11 lets an affected individual who alleges they have suffered or will suffer harm apply, as can a parent or guardian, a school leader in certain cases, and the Police where a communication threatens safety.</li>
<li><b>Meet the threshold</b>Under section 12(2), the court must be satisfied there has been a threatened, serious or repeated breach of one or more communication principles, and that it has caused or is likely to cause harm. Frivolous or vexatious applications can be dismissed without a hearing.</li>
<li><b>Orders</b>Section 18 allows interim orders. Section 19(1) lists orders against a defendant, such as taking material down, ceasing the conduct, publishing a correction or apology, and giving a right of reply. Section 19(2) lists orders against an online content host, including disabling access, releasing an anonymous author's identity to the court, publishing a correction and giving a right of reply.</li>
</ol>
</figure>

Failing to comply with an order without reasonable excuse is an offence under section 21, with up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to 5,000 dollars for an individual and a fine of up to 20,000 dollars for a company. Section 22 is a separate offence of causing harm by posting a digital communication: the person must have intended harm, posting must be harmful to an ordinary reasonable person in the victim's position, and harm must actually be caused. The penalty for an individual is up to two years' imprisonment or a fine of up to 50,000 dollars. 

The Act has limits that matter for reputation work. It is for individuals, so a company cannot use it. It requires serious emotional distress, so a post that costs you a contract but leaves you unmoved may not qualify. And an order under it still depends on the court being satisfied of a breach of the principles.

### The host's 48-hour process

Section 24 gives an online content host a safe harbour. A host is protected from civil or criminal proceedings over specific content if it receives a notice of complaint and follows the process. Within 48 hours it sends the author a copy of the complaint and tells them they may file a counter-notice within 48 hours. If the author cannot be reached after reasonable steps, the host must remove or disable the content within 48 hours. If the author consents to removal in a valid counter-notice, the host removes it. If the author refuses removal in a valid counter-notice, the content stays up and the host tells the complainant. If no valid counter-notice arrives, the host removes the content within 48 hours of notifying the author.

The process protects hosts who use it; it is not a duty on every platform to act on every email, and section 25(2) removes protection from a host with no easy way to be contacted. A counter-notice is how a determined author keeps a post up, so a contested post often ends in court. Section 25(5) preserves the right to seek injunctive relief against a host.

We did not read how particular platforms respond to New Zealand notices, so confirm on the platform's help page first.

## Choosing the route: a decision table

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Your situation</th><th>Best first route</th><th>What it can give</th><th>Main risk</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Individual, false factual claim, money not the issue</strong></td><td>Defamation claim or letter, plus Act complaint if distressing</td><td>Declaration, correction, damages</td><td>Cost; truth defense opens your own records</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Company, lost sales</strong></td><td>Defamation claim with pecuniary loss evidence</td><td>Damages, correction, injunction</td><td>No provable money loss means section 6 sinks the claim</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Harassing or intimidating posts at a person</strong></td><td>Harmful Digital Communications complaint</td><td>Take-down orders, cease orders, host orders</td><td>Distress must be serious; the agency step comes first</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>News article with a factual error</strong></td><td>Retraction or reply request within five working days</td><td>Retraction or reply; costs and compensation if agreed</td><td>Missing the five working days</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Anonymous poster</strong></td><td>Complaint route that can reach the host</td><td>Court-ordered release of author identity to the court</td><td>Order is discretionary; the author may counter-notice</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Opinion with no false fact</strong></td><td>Reply, platform report, no claim</td><td>Context, not removal</td><td>A threat letter may produce a second story</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

## What a win gives you, and what it does not do to search results

A court can award damages, make a declaration, recommend a correction and, in some cases, grant an injunction. Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act it can order a take-down. None of that touches a search result on its own. A de-indexing request to a search engine needs the order, the exact address and often a separate process of the engine's own. In many files a correction, a declaration or a take-down order is the document that lets you ask a host or search engine for action, rather than the end of the matter.

A claim can itself be reported, and a fresh news item about the dispute can outrank the original post (the Streisand effect). If the statement is accurate and in the public interest, none of these routes should be used to hide it.

For a false but small post, a precise request to the host comes first, the Act's process second, and a claim only if money loss or a campaign justifies the cost. If you want the removal side handled with a lawyer, our [removal service](/remove-negative-content) works alongside the counsel who runs the case.

## A realistic order of operations, with an invented scenario

This is an invented scenario with generic parties, to show the order. A small consultancy owner, call her the owner, finds a forum post saying her firm "took payment and never delivered" for a named project, which is false. The post names the firm and her. Assume the post is six weeks old, the author is a pseudonymous account, and the firm lost two inquiries that cited the post.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>When</th><th>Step</th><th>Why it comes then</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Day 0</strong></td><td>Dated captures of the post, the account, replies and view counts; write down when and how she first saw it</td><td>Evidence disappears; the date feeds both the limitation and the five working day question</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Days 1 to 3</strong></td><td>List what is false, what is opinion; gather the contract and payment records that prove delivery</td><td>Truth is the defense she must beat, so she tests her own facts first</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Days 3 to 7</strong></td><td>Notice to the host with exact addresses; if the post causes her serious distress, complaint to the Approved Agency</td><td>The host process and the agency step are cheap, and the agency step is a precondition for court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Weeks 2 to 4</strong></td><td>Lawyer reviews the evidence, sends a letter if the author is identifiable, and weighs company versus personal claim</td><td>The company needs pecuniary loss evidence; the owner personally does not</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Months 2 to 6</strong></td><td>If the post stays up, District Court application under the Act, or a defamation claim</td><td>The order or judgment is what a host and a search engine can act on</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Before the second anniversary</strong></td><td>Diary the limitation date and confirm it with counsel</td><td>Section 15 of the Limitation Act 2010 sets two years for defamation money claims</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

These intervals are typical, not promised. Two lost inquiries are weak money-loss evidence on their own, and a lawyer would say so before suggesting a company claim.

Four moves make a file worse. Do not post a heated reply naming the author, which can create a claim against you. Do not contact the author's employer. Do not buy fake reviews or flood the page to push the original down. Do not threaten a claim you will not bring.

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>Capture the post with a date, write down when you first saw it, and decide which Act fits before you write to anyone. If you want a second pair of eyes on the evidence and the order of steps, Reputation Partners can review the file privately through the <a href="/audit">audit</a>.</p></div>

## Questions people ask

### Can I sue for a bad review in New Zealand?

You can sue if the review contains a false statement of fact that defames you and no defense applies. A review that is only the reviewer's honest opinion on true facts is protected by honest opinion under the Defamation Act 1992. A business also needs pecuniary loss. Check the exact words with a lawyer before you write to the reviewer.

### Can a company sue for defamation in New Zealand?

Yes, but section 6 of the Defamation Act 1992 says its claim fails unless it alleges and proves pecuniary loss, actual or likely. Gather evidence of lost orders, cancelled contracts or similar money loss before sending anything. A director who is personally identified in the post may have a separate claim without that requirement.

### How long do I have to bring a defamation claim in New Zealand?

The Defamation Act 1992 sets no general limitation period. Under section 15 of the Limitation Act 2010, a defamation money claim filed at least 2 years after the act, the publication, meets a limitation defence. A claimant who could not have known earlier may have a late knowledge period, also 2 years. Ask a lawyer how it applies to your facts, and do not wait.

### Can I make someone take a defamatory post down without suing?

Sometimes. You can send a precise notice to the host, or make a complaint under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, which has a 48-hour host process in section 24 and lets the District Court order a take-down. Neither is guaranteed. A host may keep content up after a counter-notice, and the court order depends on serious distress and a breach of the principles.

### Does the Harmful Digital Communications Act cover defamation?

Not as such. It measures harm as serious emotional distress and applies to individuals, using ten communication principles, one of which is making a false allegation. A false post can fall under it, but only if a principle is breached and distress results. A company cannot apply, and reputation loss alone does not qualify.

### Can I find out who posted anonymously?

Section 19(2) of the Harmful Digital Communications Act lets the District Court order an online content host to release the identity of an anonymous or pseudonymous author to the court. That is a court power, not something a host does on request. The order is discretionary, and what happens to the identity afterward is for the court to control.