Guide to Arizona Defamation Law – Libel and Slander

Discovering that someone has spread false information about you can be a deeply distressing experience, triggering feelings of betrayal, anger, and helplessness. Defamatory statements can cause serious damage to your personal and professional reputation, affecting your relationships, career opportunities, and emotional well-being. If you’re facing this difficult situation, it’s essential to understand that Arizona law offers specific legal remedies to help you combat false statements and initiate the process of restoring your reputation and dignity.

Arizona law defines defamation as a false statement that brings the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeaches their honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. Under Arizona law, defamation is categorized as either libel (written defamation) or slander (spoken defamation). To prevail, plaintiffs must prove that the statement was false, defamatory, published to a third party, made with the requisite fault, and resulted in damage to the plaintiff. Arizona maintains specific protections for both private and public figures seeking defamation remedies, with different standards of proof required depending on the plaintiff’s status and the nature of the defamatory statement.

What is Defamation Under Arizona Law?

Under Arizona law, defamation is defined as a false statement that brings the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeaches their honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. Arizona courts have consistently held that defamation law aims to protect individuals’ reputations while balancing the constitutional right to free speech.

Arizona recognizes two forms of defamation:

1. Libel: Written defamation or defamation published in a tangible medium, including statements published in newspapers, magazines, books, online articles, social media posts, emails, or text messages.
2. Slander: Spoken defamation or defamation expressed orally, including verbal statements made in conversations, speeches, broadcasts, or other oral communications.

To establish a claim for defamation in Arizona, the plaintiff must prove five essential elements:

1. A false statement concerning the plaintiff
2. The statement was defamatory
3. The statement was published to a third party
4. The requisite fault on the part of the defendant
5. The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the statement

Arizona courts have emphasized that defamation claims must be evaluated in context, considering the entire communication rather than isolated statements. The courts will give the alleged defamatory words their natural and popular construction, and reasonable inferences will be ascertained by reading the publication as a whole.

What Are Elements of a Defamation Claim in Arizona?

To establish a valid defamation claim in Arizona, plaintiffs must prove several specific elements. Each of these components is essential to building a successful case and obtaining legal remedies for damage to one’s reputation.

False Statement Concerning the Plaintiff

For a defamation claim in Arizona, there must be a false statement about the plaintiff. The statement in question must be factual in nature, not merely an opinion. Arizona courts distinguish between statements of fact, which can be proven true or false, and statements of opinion, which are generally protected speech.

The plaintiff need not actually be named in the statement; however, the plaintiff will bear the burden of proving that the publication or communication was “of and concerning” them. In Arizona, a person may be liable for defamation for what they insinuate as well as what they say explicitly.

The Statement Was Defamatory

The statement must be defamatory in nature, meaning it must tend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation by lowering them in the estimation of the community or deterring others from associating with them. In Arizona, written communications will constitute libel per se if “on their face and without the aid of any extrinsic matter” they tend to “bring any person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule” or “impeach [their] honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.”

For slander, Arizona recognizes certain categories of statements as slander per se, including statements that:

• Tend to injure a person in their profession, trade, or business
• Charge a contagious or venereal disease, or impute that a woman is not chaste
• Impute the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude

Publication to a Third Party

The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. In Arizona, “publication” occurs when the defendant communicates the statement to a third party who understands its defamatory meaning. This can include verbal statements to another person, posts on social media, or articles in newspapers or online publications. Even sharing the defamatory statement with just one other person satisfies this element.

Requisite Fault on the Part of the Defendant

The plaintiff must prove the defendant was at fault in making the defamatory statement. For private individuals, Arizona requires proof of negligence—that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in determining whether the statement was true before publishing it. For public figures or matters of public concern, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice”—that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

Damage to the Plaintiff

The plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered damage as a result of the defamatory statement. In cases of defamation per se (statements that are inherently damaging), damages are presumed. For other defamatory statements (defamation per quod), the plaintiff must provide evidence of specific damages, such as lost business opportunities, termination of employment, or emotional distress.

In Arizona, to recover for defamation per se, plaintiffs need not allege special damages and may instead allege non-pecuniary damages, such as damage to reputation. To recover for defamation per quod, plaintiffs must allege special damages, such as lost profits or other “pecuniary loss.”

What Are the Standards For Private vs. Public Figures in Arizona?

Arizona law applies different standards of proof in defamation cases depending on whether the plaintiff is considered a private individual or a public figure. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in defamation litigation.

Private Figures

In Arizona, private individuals have greater protection under defamation law and face a lower burden of proof. To succeed in a defamation claim, a private figure must prove:

1. The defendant made a false statement about them
2. The statement was published to a third party
3. The defendant was at least negligent in making the statement (failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying its accuracy)
4. The statement caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation

For private figures in Arizona, liability may be proved by showing that the defendant acted with actual knowledge of falsity, or with reckless disregard of the truth, or negligently in failing to learn the truth.

Arizona courts have found the following individuals and organizations to be private figures:

• A company selling an electronic parts catalog where the company was not involved in any public controversy prior to the defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements (the court specifically held that the company’s use of advertising did not make it a public figure)
• A corporation selling diamonds and other precious stones, despite its use of mail and telephone solicitations

Public Figures

Public figures in Arizona face a higher burden of proof in defamation cases. They must prove all the elements required for private figures, plus demonstrate that the defendant acted with “actual malice”—meaning the defendant:

1. Knew the statement was false, or
2. Acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false

Arizona recognizes two types of public figures:

• All-purpose public figures: Individuals who have achieved “such pervasive fame or notoriety that [they become] a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts”
• Limited-purpose public figures: Individuals who “voluntarily inject themselves or are drawn into a particular public controversy”

In determining whether a person is a limited-purpose public figure, Arizona courts consider whether the person has “thrust himself or his views into public controversy to influence others” and whether the person’s “position with respect to the matters of public concern gives him access to the media on a regular and continuing basis.” The courts have held that a person is “not automatically transformed into a public figure just by becoming involved in or associated with a matter that attracts public attention.” Rather, the person must assume a position that invites attention.

Arizona has held the following categories of persons to be “public officials” for purposes of applying the New York Times v. Sullivan standard:

• Student senators
• Police officers
• Teachers
• Narcotics agents
• County sheriffs
• FAA inspectors

What Are Common Defenses to Defamation in Arizona?

Defendants in Arizona defamation cases have several potential defenses available to them. Understanding these defenses is important for both plaintiffs considering litigation and defendants responding to defamation claims.

Truth

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation in Arizona. Under Arizona defamation law, if the defendant can prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is true or substantially true, the plaintiff’s claim will fail regardless of the defendant’s motives or the harm caused.

Arizona courts consider a statement to be “substantially true” if, viewed “through the eyes of the average reader,” it differs from truth “only in insignificant details.” Substantial truth will be found where the crux or “gist” of a statement is still true, but for slight, immaterial inaccuracies.

Truth is an affirmative defense in Arizona defamation cases and must be pleaded. Where no legitimate claim of privilege exists, an Arizona defendant has the burden of proving truth as a defense. However, where the plaintiff is a public figure, they bear the burden of proving with convincing clarity that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.

Opinion

Statements of pure opinion that cannot be proven true or false are protected under the First Amendment and Arizona law. The Arizona Supreme Court has adopted the standards set forth in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., holding that the Arizona Constitution “provides no greater privilege for otherwise defamatory statements than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

In Milkovich, the Court found that a defamation action must be based on a false assertion of fact, and a statement of opinion, so long as it “does not contain a provably false factual connotation [,] will receive full constitutional protection.”

Examples of how Arizona courts have ruled on opinion include:

• A Republican state representative’s reference to a Democratic county supervisor as being a “communist” could be construed as a statement of fact
• A school nurse’s statements that a police officer was “rude and disrespectful” and that “his manner bordered on police brutality” were not actionable because they were “subjective impressions, unprovable as false”

Privilege

Arizona recognizes several types of privilege that can protect statements from defamation claims:

Absolute Privilege

In Arizona, absolute privilege extends to:

• Statements made by witnesses in private contractual arbitration proceedings
• Statements made in the context of judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings, and administrative or executive functions of government, as long as the recipient of the communication has a direct interest in the litigation or processes evidentiary information directly relevant to it
• Statements made in judicial pleadings if connected with or related to the subject of the inquiry
• Statements made for the purpose of apprising a party of the basis or status of a lawsuit

For Arizona defendants to be covered and protected under the judicial immunity doctrine, an attorney’s extrajudicial statement must be both related to and made in furtherance of the litigation, and the recipient of the communications must have some relationship to the proceeding.

Qualified Privilege

In Arizona, qualified or conditional privilege is based on the social utility of protecting statements required to be made in response to a legal, moral, or social duty. Examples include:

• Statements made in editorials published in the “public interest”
• Statements contained in public records required to be kept by public officers in furtherance of their statutory duties
• Statements made by union officials acting pursuant to official duties
• Statements made to others who share a common interest in the subject matter
• Statements made by high-level government officials within the scope of their duties
• Fair and accurate reports of public proceedings
• Statements made by an employee to an employer reporting perceived sexual harassment in the workplace
• Communications made to public officials concerning matters that affect the discharge of their duties
• Statements made by government employees in the course of discretionary administrative actions

Fair Comment and Fair Report Privileges

Arizona recognizes the fair comment privilege, which protects “the honest expression of defamatory statements of opinion so long as they are drawn from a true or privileged statement of fact, unless such statements are made with Common Law malice.” This privilege “is limited to discussions of matters which are of legitimate concern to the community as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community.”

Arizona also recognizes the fair report privilege, which protects radio and television owners, licensees, or operators from liability for defamatory statements published or uttered by others, unless they failed to exercise “due care” to prevent such publication or utterance. “Due care” is defined as “a bona fide compliance with federal law or regulations of a federal regulatory agency.”

Anti-SLAPP Protection

Arizona has a narrow Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which applies to statements “made as part of an initiative, referendum or recall effort” or that are made before or submitted to a legislative or executive body or other governmental proceeding, made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by such a body, and made for the purpose of influencing governmental action, decision, or result.

Statute of Limitations

In Arizona, actions for “injuries done to the character or reputation of another by libel or slander” must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues. A cause of action typically accrues when the plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) the essential elements of the action.

What Damages Can Be Recovered for Defamation in Arizona?

When a plaintiff successfully proves defamation in Arizona, they may be entitled to various forms of compensation. The types and amounts of damages available depend on several factors, including the nature of the defamatory statement and its impact on the plaintiff.

Presumed Damages

In Arizona, damages will be presumed without a showing of actual damages if a “publication … impeaches the honesty, integrity, or reputation of a person, or which is damaging to his professional reputation.” These presumed damages are associated with defamation per se.

It’s important to note that a public figure must actually demonstrate actual malice before recovering presumed damages in Arizona.

Special Damages

Special damages compensate for specific financial losses that the plaintiff can prove resulted from the defamation. Under Arizona law, plaintiffs must specifically plead special damages. When a statement or publication is libelous per quod in Arizona, special damages must be pleaded and shown.

Special damages might include:

• Lost wages or income
• Lost business opportunities
• Medical expenses for treatment of emotional distress
• Other quantifiable economic losses

Actual Damages

In Arizona, jury instruction to presume damages from words that are slanderous per se is considered erroneous. Actual damages aim to compensate the plaintiff for real and tangible harm suffered as a result of the defamation, such as:

• Damage to reputation
• Humiliation
• Mental anguish and emotional distress
• Loss of standing in the community

Punitive Damages

Under Arizona defamation law, punitive damages cannot be awarded absent proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. These damages are intended to punish the defendant for particularly egregious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future.

To recover punitive damages, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with an “evil mind,” showing either intent to injure the plaintiff or conscious disregard of a substantial risk of significant harm.

What Is The Statute of Limitations for Arizona Defamation Claims?

Understanding the time constraints for filing a defamation lawsuit is crucial for protecting your legal rights. Arizona law establishes specific deadlines that must be strictly observed.

In Arizona, actions for “injuries done to the character or reputation of another by libel or slander” must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues. A cause of action will typically accrue when the plaintiff discovers (or should have discovered) the essential elements of the action.

Arizona has adopted the Uniform Single Publication Act, which applies to statements made on the Internet as well as in print and broadcast media. This means that for a single publication, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of first publication, and subsequent distributions of the same material do not create new causes of action.

However, there is an important exception to the Uniform Single Publication Act in Arizona. The Court of Appeals of Arizona has stated that while the general rule is that the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication, the statute of limitations may instead begin to run upon discovery in situations where the defamation is published in a way that is likely to be concealed from the plaintiff, such as in a confidential memorandum or a credit report.

Additionally, the “Agricultural Protection Act” creates a cause of action for false claims concerning perishable food products and has a two-year statute of limitations period.

Frequently Asked Questions About Arizona Defamation Law

Below are answers to some of the most common questions about defamation law in Arizona. These insights can help you better understand your rights and options if you’re involved in a defamation matter.

Can You Press Charges Against Someone for Making False Accusations in Arizona?

Defamation in Arizona is a civil matter, not a criminal offense, so you cannot “press charges” in the traditional sense. Arizona’s criminal libel statute was repealed in 1978. However, you can file a civil lawsuit seeking damages against someone who has made false accusations about you. In certain extreme cases where false accusations involve filing false police reports or perjury, criminal charges might be applicable, but these would be pursued by prosecutors, not private individuals.

How Difficult is it to Win a Defamation Lawsuit in Arizona?

Winning a defamation lawsuit in Arizona can be challenging due to the need to prove all five required elements: a false statement concerning the plaintiff, the statement was defamatory, the statement was published to a third party, the requisite fault on the part of the defendant, and damage to the plaintiff. The difficulty increases significantly for public figures who must prove actual malice. Success rates vary based on:

• The nature of the defamatory statement
• Available evidence of falsity
• The defendant’s level of fault
• Documented damages
• Whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure
• Applicable defenses

Working with an experienced defamation attorney significantly improves your chances of success by helping you gather appropriate evidence and navigate complex legal standards.

How Long Do Defamation Cases Take in Arizona?

Defamation cases in Arizona typically take between one and three years to resolve, depending on:

• The complexity of the case
• The court’s docket
• Whether the case settles or goes to trial
• The need for appeals

Many defamation cases settle before trial, which can shorten the timeline. However, complex cases involving multiple defendants, extensive discovery, or novel legal issues may take longer to resolve.

Does Arizona Have an Anti-SLAPP Statute?

Yes, Arizona has a narrow Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, codified at Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-751, 12-752. This law applies to statements “made as part of an initiative, referendum or recall effort” or that are made before or submitted to a legislative or executive body or other governmental proceeding, made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by such a body, and made for the purpose of influencing governmental action, decision, or result.

If a defendant successfully invokes the Anti-SLAPP statute, the case may be dismissed early, and the defendant may recover attorney’s fees and costs.

Are There Legal Protections for Anonymous Speech in Arizona?

Yes, Arizona courts have applied tests that are highly protective of anonymous speech. In the case of Mobilisa v. Doe, the Arizona Court of Appeals adopted a “summary judgment plus” standard for unmasking anonymous defendants. This requires:

1. A plaintiff must first put forward sufficient evidence to support their claim
2. A plaintiff must put forward enough evidence, which is then independently balanced by the court against the need for disclosure and the speaker’s claim to First Amendment protection

Only if the plaintiff’s interests outweigh the First Amendment values and protections at stake should the court order disclosure of an anonymous defendant’s identity. The court will consider factors such as the type of speech involved, the speaker’s expectation of privacy, the potential consequences of a discovery order to the speaker and others similarly situated, the need for the identity of the speaker to advance the requesting party’s position, and the availability of alternative discovery methods.

What Should I Look for in a Defamation Attorney?

When selecting a defamation attorney in Arizona, consider these key factors:

1. Experience with defamation cases: Look for an attorney with specific experience handling defamation claims in Arizona courts, not just general litigation experience.
2. Understanding of First Amendment issues: Defamation law intersects with constitutional free speech protections, so your attorney should have a strong grasp of these complex legal principles.
3. Digital expertise: For online defamation, seek an attorney familiar with internet platforms, content removal strategies, and digital evidence preservation.
4. Clear fee structure: Understand how the attorney charges (hourly rates, contingency fees, or hybrid arrangements) and what expenses you might incur.
5. Strategic approach: A good defamation attorney should offer multiple strategies, potentially including demand letters, negotiation, content removal, and litigation when necessary.
6. Communication style: Choose an attorney who explains complex legal concepts clearly and keeps you informed throughout the process.

Work With the Arizona Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law

When facing defamation issues in Arizona, having experienced legal representation can make a significant difference in protecting your reputation and securing appropriate remedies.

If you’re a resident of Arizona or any other U.S. state and have been the victim of malicious and defamatory online attacks, the internet defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law can help you protect your reputation and seek appropriate legal remedies. Our team has deep experience in defamation law and has successfully represented clients throughout Arizona in complex defamation matters.

When working with Minc Law, you can expect:

• Courtesy and respect throughout the process, as we understand how invasive and overwhelming online defamation can be
• Open dialogue and communication, with frequent updates about your case
• Results-driven representation from attorneys who know how to work with website administrators, content managers, and third-party arbitration firms

Don’t let defamatory statements continue to damage your reputation. Contact Minc Law today for a free case review by calling us at (216) 373-7706, or by filling out our contact form online.