US defamation online: the claim, the filters, the clock

US defamation online is a state-law claim that sits inside a federal frame. You must show a false statement of fact about you, published to others, that someone is at fault for, and the First Amendment sets the minimum level of fault. A federal statute, Section 230, usually means the person you sue is the author of the post, not the website that carries it.

That is why two identical posts can lead to very different outcomes depending on who you are, what the post says, where you sue and how quickly you act. A public official faces a harder test than a private person. An opinion is not actionable. Several states add a notice step, a short clock, or an early motion that lets a defendant ask a court to throw out a weak claim and, in some states, to pay the defendant's costs.

This guide covers the claim itself and the filters it has to pass. It does not repeat the cross-border comparison, the right to be forgotten, or the question of suing over a review, which have their own guides. It is information, not legal advice: your own attorney in the right state decides what applies. We read the federal statute, three Supreme Court opinions and one California Supreme Court opinion, plus New York, Florida and Texas texts. The fifth section says which states we could and could not confirm.

The short version

You need a false statement of fact about you, published to someone else, with fault on the speaker's side. Truth, opinion and rhetorical exaggeration all defeat the claim.
Your status sets the bar: a public official must prove actual malice, and a private person can generally recover for proven injury on a lower fault standard that each state sets for itself.
Section 230 usually keeps the claim on the author. A letter to a platform that says "this is false" does not make the platform liable for the post.
State rules do the rest: some require a written notice first, clocks run from one to several years, and anti-SLAPP laws can end a weak claim early. Check your state before you send anything.

One yearthe New York limit for libel and slander under CPLR 215(3)

Two yearsthe Florida limit for libel or slander, per the 2024 text of section 95.11

60 daysthe California window to file an anti-SLAPP motion after service of the complaint, extendable by the court

Sources: nysenate.gov (CPLR 215), flsenate.gov (Florida Statutes 95.11, 2024 text, which the site marks as unverified) and the California Supreme Court opinion in Newport Harbor Ventures v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, filed March 22, 2018. Other states were not read.

A US defamation claim has four parts and the details are state law

A claim generally needs a false statement of fact that is about you, that was shared with at least one other person, and that the speaker is at fault for. Many states add that the statement must have damaged your reputation or caused a loss you can show. The exact wording of each element, and which kinds of statement count without proof of loss, differ from state to state, so treat this as the outline and check your state's version.

The statement. It has to say something that can be checked. "He stole from the till" can be proved true or false. "She is the worst dentist in town" cannot. The statement also has to be about you: a post that names you does, and a post that describes you without a name can, if readers who know you would recognize you.

The publication. Online, publication happens when someone other than you reads it. A private message to you alone is not publication.

The fault. The speaker must have been at some level of fault about the falsehood. What level depends on you and the topic, covered in the next section.

The harm. Damage to reputation, or a loss you can show, such as income. Which statements count without proof of loss differs by state, and we did not read those lists.

If you cannot name a sentence that is both checkable and false, you do not yet have a defamation claim.

Fault: why a public official and a private person face different tests

The more public you are, the more you have to prove about the speaker's state of mind. This is a federal constitutional rule that overrides state law, and it is a large part of why US claims are hard to win.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments bar a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct unless the official proves actual malice. The Court defined actual malice as publishing "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Carelessness alone does not meet it. We read the opinion on the Cornell Legal Information Institute site.

The Court later dealt with private people in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). On our reading of the opinion on the Cornell Legal Information Institute site, states may set their own standard of liability for a media defendant's defamation of a private person, so long as they do not impose liability without fault. And absent knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, a state may not allow presumed or punitive damages: the private plaintiff recovers compensation for actual injury, such as reputational harm, humiliation or mental anguish.

Two things follow. We did not read each state's private-person standard, so we state none. And the line between public and private is argued, not given: courts have extended the actual-malice rule beyond officials to some public figures, but we did not read those decisions, so we state the principle only in outline.

Who you are	What the sources we read say	What you usually must prove	Damages note
Public official, about official conduct	Sullivan, 1964	Falsity and actual malice	Damages only if actual malice is shown
Private person	Gertz, 1974	Falsity and fault, at a level the state sets	Compensation for actual injury; presumed or punitive damages need actual malice
Public figure who is not an official	Not read; courts have extended the rule	Likely actual malice, depending on the case	Ask counsel
Business owner	Not read	Depends on whether the statement is about the business or about you	State law

Fact or opinion: the line courts draw

An opinion cannot be defamatory. The harder question is what counts as an opinion, because the label a speaker uses does not decide it. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), is the leading case. On the Cornell copy we read, the Court held that the First Amendment does not require a separate opinion privilege under state defamation law, and that a statement on a matter of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability, at least where a media defendant is involved. The Court also said that simply couching a statement as opinion does not dispel the implication of fact.

That test is the same one a careful reader applies. Ask whether the statement implies a fact that someone could check. "In my opinion he is a fraud" implies facts about conduct and can be actionable. "I did not enjoy the service" does not.

Three questions help with an online post. Is it checkable: a date, an amount, an accusation of a crime or a license status is. Is the basis stated: a review that tells the story behind it lets readers judge for themselves. Is it hyperbole: jokes and insults that no reader would take literally tend not to be treated as factual claims. And is it true? Falsity is part of the claim. Who carries the burden of proving truth or falsity differs by situation, and we did not confirm the allocation for each state, so ask counsel.

Section 230: why the claim usually goes to the author, not the site

Section 230 of Title 47 is the reason most readers cannot sue the website. The text we read on the Cornell Legal Information Institute page for 47 U.S.C. 230 says in subsection (c)(1) that no 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.

A defamation claim treats the defendant as the publisher of the false words. Section 230 removes that treatment for a service that only carries somebody else's words. The consequences are specific.

The shield follows the author, not the topic. An information content provider is a person or entity responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the information (subsection (f)(3)). A site that writes the statement itself, or helps create it, is in a different position from a site that hosts a user's text. Whether a site feature amounts to "development" is for courts, and we read no cases on it.

Search tools are named in the definitions. Subsection (f)(2) includes access software providers in "interactive computer service", and (f)(4)(C) lists software that can "search, subset, organize, reorganize". How a court treats a particular feature is a question we did not research through cases.

There are limits. Subsection (e) states that the section does not impair enforcement of federal criminal statutes (e)(1) and does not limit or expand intellectual property law (e)(2). Subsection (e)(3) says states may enforce consistent laws but no state or local liability may be imposed that is inconsistent with the section. So a state cannot get around Section 230 by renaming the claim. An intellectual property route is a different matter: a copied photograph is a copyright problem, not a defamation problem.

The practical result: the platform's own rules, not defamation law, are the realistic route to removal, and any legal claim is aimed at the person who wrote the words.

What we could and could not confirm, state by state

Defamation is decided under state law, and the states differ. We read primary pages for the points below. Everything else about every other state is outside this guide, and the table says so.

State	What we confirmed	Source read	Not confirmed
New York	One-year limit for libel and slander, CPLR 215(3); actual malice standard in public-participation actions, Civil Rights Law 76-a	nysenate.gov	Fees, the dismissal motion in CPLR 3211(g), retraction rules
Florida	Written notice at least 5 days before suit, section 770.01; two-year limit, section 95.11; anti-SLAPP, section 768.295	flsenate.gov, 2024 text	Current-year text, retraction detail
California	Special motion to strike under section 425.16(b)(1); 60 days from service of the complaint	California Supreme Court opinion, 2018	The statute page itself, the limitation period, the retraction statute, fee rules
Texas	Request for correction, clarification or retraction, section 73.055	2013 bill text on capitol.texas.gov; republished code text	The official code page, the limitation period, the Citizens Participation Act
All other states	Nothing	None	Everything: check your state

The California statute page and the official Texas code page could not be read for this guide, so for those two states we relied on a court opinion and a republished code text. If your state is not in the table, assume nothing: look up its limitation period, its notice or retraction rule and its anti-SLAPP law before you plan.

Notice and retraction demands: a gate in some states

Some states require you to ask the publisher for a correction before you can sue, or to give written notice first. The two we read work differently and show why a letter can be a legal step, not only a courtesy.

Florida. On the 2024 text on the Florida Senate site, section 770.01 requires a person who wants to sue for libel or slander over a statement published in a newspaper, periodical or other medium to send the defendant written notice at least 5 days before filing. The notice has to identify the specific article or broadcast and the particular statements claimed to be false and defamatory. The site marks its text as unverified, and whether a social post falls within "other medium" is a question for a Florida lawyer.

Texas. Section 73.055 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as shown on a public-law republication of the code and in a 2013 bill text, provides that a defamation action may be brought only if the plaintiff made a timely and sufficient request for correction, clarification or retraction, or the defendant has made one. A request is timely if made within the limitations period. If the plaintiff does not make a request within 90 days after learning of the publication, the plaintiff cannot recover exemplary damages. A sufficient request is served on the publisher, in writing, identifies the requester, is signed by the claimant or an authorized attorney or agent, identifies the statement with particularity and alleges its defamatory meaning. We did not read the official state code page, so confirm the current text before relying on any number.

The shared lesson is that the first letter can be a legal step. A good one quotes the exact words, says where and when they appeared, and says what is false and why.

Anti-SLAPP: the filter that tests your claim early

A SLAPP is a lawsuit aimed at silencing speech on a public issue. Anti-SLAPP laws let a defendant ask a court to dismiss such a claim quickly. For a claimant, the risk is that a weak defamation claim about a public matter is tested at the start and can cost the claimant money.

California. The California Supreme Court opinion in Newport Harbor Ventures v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, filed March 22, 2018, quotes section 425.16(b)(1): a cause of action arising from protected speech or petition activity is subject to a special motion to strike unless the court determines the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on the claim. The motion may be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, or later at the court's discretion, and the court held that the time runs from the earliest complaint containing the cause of action. The opinion does not discuss fees, so we do not state a fee rule for California. Read the opinion on the California courts site.

New York. Civil Rights Law 76-a defines an action involving public petition and participation as a claim based on a communication in a public place or forum about a matter of public concern, or other lawful conduct in furtherance of the constitutional right of free speech. "Public interest" is read broadly to mean any subject other than a purely private matter. In those actions, damages are recoverable only if the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the communication was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. The page we read has no fee provision.

Florida. Section 768.295, on the 2024 text, bars a lawsuit that lacks merit and is brought primarily because the target exercised free speech on a public issue. It defines that speech as protected statements made before a government body or in connection with works such as a news report or a book. A party sued in violation can seek an expedited resolution, and the court must award the prevailing party reasonable fees and costs for a claim filed in violation of the section. Read the Florida text on the Senate site.

Before you sue over a post that touches a public matter, assume the defendant may move early. Check whether the issue is one of public concern and whether you hold the evidence of falsity and fault today. A claim built on a rating, an opinion or an accurate statement is the kind these laws exist to stop.

The clock: write down the date before you do anything else

Limitation periods for defamation are short in the states we read. New York's CPLR 215(3) sets one year for libel or slander. Florida's section 95.11, on the 2024 text, places libel and slander in the two-year group. Those are two data points, not a national rule, and other states differ.

Three practical rules follow.

Start from the first publication you can prove. The date is usually the day the words went live, not the day you found them. Save a dated capture of the page when you first see it.

Do not assume a repost restarts the clock. Whether a later publication, an edit or a new platform starts a new period is governed by state rules on republication and single publication, which we did not read. Treat the first date as the working deadline until counsel tells you otherwise.

A letter does not stop the clock by itself. In Texas, section 73.055(e) as we read it tolls limitations during the periods allowed under sections 73.056 and 73.057, which we did not read. That is a statutory pause for a particular process, not a general effect of sending any letter. In other states, assume your letter changes nothing about the deadline.

Treat the earliest date as a hard stop and leave time for an attorney to file.

An invented scenario: a false claim about a license, step by step

This is an invented scenario with generic parties, to show the order of work. A consultant, A, discovers that an anonymous account on a forum has posted that A "lost his professional license for fraud." A holds a valid license and never lost one. The post is public and appears in a search for A's name. Assume A lives in a state where the limitation period is one year and that A is a private person; those two assumptions are invented for the example.

When	Action	Why now
Day 1	Capture the page with the URL, date and time. Pull the license record that shows it is valid.	The post can change or vanish and the proof of falsity is yours to hold
Days 1 to 3	Report to the platform under its own rules, citing the specific false fact and attaching the license record	Section 230 means the legal route does not reach the site; its rules might
Week 1	Consult an attorney in A's state: notice rules, clock, anti-SLAPP exposure, public or private status	The state decides the gate and the cost
Weeks 2 to 4	If a platform removes the post, preserve a copy; if the author is identifiable, a written notice or retraction request in the form the state requires	Some states require this step and it sets damages
Month 2 onward	Decide whether a claim is worth its cost: the author's identity, assets and the strength of the proof of falsity	A judgment against someone who cannot pay changes nothing
Month 10 in a one-year state	File or let the right lapse by decision, not by drift	The deadline does not wait for negotiations

The claim is strong on falsity and checkability, and weak on the target, because the author is anonymous and the site is shielded. The platform report comes first because it is the cheapest route and does not depend on those questions.

Which route fits which post

Match the problem to the route before you spend money. This table is deliberately about US posts and what each route reaches.

Situation	First route	What it can reach	Where it fails
False fact, author known	Written correction request in the state's form	The author, then a court	Short clocks, anti-SLAPP, a collectability problem
False fact, author anonymous	Platform report under its rules	The post, if it breaks a rule	Section 230 means no legal duty to remove
Harsh opinion or low rating	A calm public reply	Nothing legal	A letter backfires and can draw attention
Accurate but damaging story	Ask the publisher for an update	Context, not deletion	Truth defeats the claim and the First Amendment protects the story
Copied photo or text	Copyright notice to the host	The copy	Does not address the false statement itself

No route makes a search engine drop an accurate page. For lawful content that stays up, the realistic option is lawful push-down by better, accurate pages; our removal service starts from sorting which of these routes fit.

Your next step: one sentence, one date, one state

If this is happening to you now

Write down the exact sentence you say is false, the date it first appeared, the evidence that it is untrue and the state that governs your case. With those four items an attorney can tell you in one meeting whether a claim is realistic, and our private audit can map what a search engine or AI assistant shows about you while you wait. Request a private audit.

Reputation Partners works on the part of this that is not litigation: reviewing what is accurate, what is outdated and what is false, and deciding with you and your counsel which route fits. We do not give legal advice and we do not promise removal, because the decision belongs to a platform, a publisher or a court.

Questions people ask

Is an insulting comment automatically defamation?

No. An insult, a joke or an exaggeration that no reasonable reader would take as a statement of fact is generally not defamation. The question is whether the words assert something checkable that is false. "He is a crook" can imply facts about conduct; "he is annoying" cannot. Courts look at context, and your attorney can judge where a comment falls.

Can a company sue for defamation?

In general, a business can bring a claim over false statements about its products or conduct, but the rules differ by state and by who the statement is about. We did not read the state rules on this point for this guide. A statement about a company is not automatically a statement about its owner, and the post has to point to the person who sues.

What if the post has been up for years?

Look at the limitation period in your state before anything else. Where it is one or two years, as in New York and Florida on the texts we read, an old post may be out of time for a claim. A time-barred post can still be reported under a platform's rules, or answered with accurate content.

Does winning a defamation case remove the page from search results?

Not by itself. A judgment is a finding against a defendant; it does not delete a page, and it does not instruct a search engine. Getting a page taken down or de-indexed after a judgment is a further step that depends on the court's order, the host and the search engine. Plan for that gap before you commit to a case.

Do I need a lawyer to send a retraction request?

Not always, but it is wise where a state treats the request as a legal step. Texas and Florida attach conditions to notices and requests in the texts we read, and a defective one can cost you damages or time. An attorney in your state can check the form, and you keep the evidence and dates ready.