Home > Research Legal Advice > Libel / Slander > Is there precedence set for holding website libel for defamation due to ...
Asked 12 months ago - Vancouver, WA
FlagI'm interested to know if laws are well established for web related businesses engaged in social media and sites (like Avvo) that have a rating system for subscribers.
I don't the context of your concern, but let me give this a try. The laws for defamation have not really changed simply because new media of communication have emerged. Most of the reviews here on Avvo (for example) are clearly matters of opinion. Therefore, they are protected speech and not subject to the laws of defamation. However, to the extent that a review makes actual allegations (i.e., Mr. Smith steals client money and doesn't do the work), the only real defense to such aspersions is truth. In other words, the "speaker" would need to be able to prove that the allegation is based upon actual facts. It is not sufficient that the "speaker" heard a rumor that was presented as fact, assumed it was true, and repeated it. To the extent that it was not true and was not opinion, it is actionable as defamation.
For most defamations, damages have to be shown (i.e., Smith's client traffic dried up after the "speaker" made the allegation about his stealing client money). If the damages are not shown, victory will likely take the form of a nominal damages award (i.e., one dollar award). There exists a handful of areas which are considered "defamation per se," and they are presumed to be damaging without proof of damages. Because those defamation per se areas tend to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I won't go into them here as I am not a Washington State practitioner.
I hope this answer has been helpful. Enjoy your weekend.
Yes, it is pretty well settled. A Federal statute commonly referred to as '230(c)' provides immunity to websites, ISP's, hosting service, etc. for providing the Internet, basically. The people that provide information on their site are the one's liable for false information, in otherwards it is still the speaker who gets in trouble. There is some case law out there that differentiates between an active or passive site, but that would not include situations where people, places or things are 'rated'. Providing a forum to complain or compliment others does not create any liability for the forum owner, such as AVVO.
Don't speak legalese? We define thousands of terms in plain English.
Browse our legal dictionary
