In this comprehensive blog post, we’re going to walk you through social media defamation, the differences between libel and slander, several notable defamation social media cases, who you can hold accountable for social media and online defamation, and the various damages associated with such actions.
Interested to learn about your state’s specific defamation and libel laws? Head on over to our ‘United States Defamation & Libel Laws’ mega-page, which includes an interactive state map!
Also referred to as “defamation of character” or the “tort of defamation,” social media defamation is a comprehensive term governing the communication, publication, or act of disseminating a false statement of fact to a third-party, which subsequently causes damage or injury to another party’s reputation.
In most Common Law legal jurisdictions, such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, defamation is classified as a civil wrong, meaning it gives rise to damages for the plaintiff.
Defamation may be divided into two core types:
- Slander: a spoken communication or dissemination of a false assertion of fact to a third-party, which subsequently causes damage or injury to another party’s reputation.
- Libel: a written or published (think media, photographs, signs, print, etc…) false assertion of fact to a third-party or audience, which subsequently causes damage or injury to another party’s reputation.
Specifically, social media defamation refers to a libelous or slanderous statement which is made on a social media platform. For the purposes of this blog post, social media is defined as an interactive computer technology or website which enables the creation and sharing of information, interests, photographs, ideas, and other types of expression.
Furthermore, social media may take form in the following mediums: interactive Internet-based applications, user-generated content (UGC) platforms, service-oriented profiles, and mediums which further the development of a social network by way of connecting persons, groups, or organizations. It should be no surprise now what some of the most popular social media applications and websites out there are, but here’s a few to refresh your memory:
So, why does social media defamation especially stand to cause significant harm or damage to your personal and professional reputation? Because of its ability to go viral.
While online forums and personal blogs may still cause harm to a party’s reputation, their overall reach is still limited compared to that of a social media website. Think about it, it’s not just a social media website – it’s a social media network. And, social media sites have tailored and crafted their websites and applications for the purposes of making “viral content,” implementing a single-click button to re-Tweet, pin, reblog, or reshare content.
Social media defamation may also be commonly referred to as:
- Cyber defamation
- Character assassination
Keep in mind that disparagement is actually an incorrect labeling of online defamation, and actually refers to the harm or injury done to a business or person’s financial and proprietary rights, rather than to their reputation. Some persons may refer to it as “slandering a business on social media,” however, this is likely an incorrect application of the term “slander.” You can read up more on the tort of commercial and business disparagement by checking out our comprehensive blog post here.
Slander on Social Media
Referring to defamatory comments on social media as “slander on social media” is actually a misnomer, as slander is defined as the spoke communication of a false assertion of fact to a third-party, which subsequently harms another’s reputation.
Persons who are defamed online and on social media should understand that they are being ‘libeled,’ as the form in which the defamation is published is written and tangible.
Online Defamation Removal Tip: Document, document, document! When confronting online defamation and social media defamation, it’s extremely important you document and preserve everything. Take screenshots of the offensive material, and make sure to have a trusted friend or family member take screenshots as well – doing so will help refute any potential claims you tampered with the evidence. Also, we strongly recommend making sure they are timestamped.
Have you been the victim of libel or slander on a social media website and want to remove the content immediately? Reach out to the online defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law today!
At Minc Law, we’ve secured the effective removal of over 25,000 pieces of defamatory online content (from user-generated content platforms, social media websites, and more), and all for a flat reasonable fee. Furthermore, we boast a nearly 100% online defamation takedown and removal rate, so know that you’re in good hands.
We’ve worked tirelessly with countless website administrators, content managers, and third-party arbitration firms to identify malicious online trolls and commenters, and removal negative and false information, so reach out today to get started!
It’s time to take back your online presence!
If you’ve been defamed or libeled on social media (or on other online websites and forums), you’ll typically be required to prove four (4) elements in order to succeed in your defamation action.
Most U.S. states follow the below four-pronged criteria for those bringing defamation actions:
- False statement of fact: At its core, there must be a false assertion of fact in the subject matter (about a person, business, or organization);
- Publication to a third-party: Such false assertion of fact must have been communicated or published to a third-party or audience (after all, what harm is going to be done if no one ever actually hears or reads the statement). Furthermore, the publication must be unprivileged – meaning the party who made it was not protected by legal doctrine.
- Fault: The party who published or communicated the statement must have done so with fault amounting to at least negligence; and
- Damages: The statement or publication in question must have caused harm or damage to the plaintiff or was “defamatory per se.”
As we noted above, it’s extremely important to properly identify and recognize the form in which the defamation was conveyed, as it could have a serious impact on your legal rights and remedies. And, don’t forget that defamation, libel, and slander elements all may potentially differ by state, so it’s strongly recommended you consult an experienced defamation attorney before confronting social media and online defamation.
What do you call a person who has committed social media libel and slander?
Some common names for persons who have libeled and slandered persons on social media include:
- Defamers – the overarching and general term for persons who communicate or publish defamatory statements on social media websites and applications.
- Libelers – persons who publish a written defamatory statement(s) on a social media website or application.
- Slanderers – persons who orally (in spoken form) publish a defamatory statement on a social media website or application.
- Famacide – a rather archaic term for persons who literally “destroy another person’s reputation.”
Modified Photos & Media
So, you might be wondering whether modified photographs and other media will give rise to an actionable defamation claim in the United States. Simply put, there’s a good chance that if a person modifies or alters an existing defamatory photograph or publication, then they too will avail themselves to a libel claim.
However, it’s important to keep in mind there is a line to be drawn, and generally, the more absurd and unbelievable the modification, the more likely a court will rule in favor of the defendant. While, if the photograph or media publication has barely been altered and merely “republished,” then the person/defendant will likely be held equally as liable as the original publisher.
The general rule in United States defamation law is that if a party republishes a defamatory statement (even if attributed to the original source), they will be liable for defamation. Such doctrine applies to both libelous and slanderous statements. Note that the only time a republishing party will skirt defamation liability is in cases where they are bestowed with legal privilege – or the legal right to communicate or publish such statement.
There is however a limited exception to this hardline rule, known as the ‘single publication doctrine’. Specifically, the single publication doctrine limits a libel plaintiff’s recovery to a single publication and not for the subsequent copies or issues which are then published. As our legal system is highly overworked and clogged, the single publication rule helps cut out unnecessary claims after a matter has already been litigated on. Do understand that the single publication rule likely won’t apply to ‘re-publications’ which have materially altered or modified in the content in question.
Online Libel Removal Tip: Keep in mind that a person’s status in society or the community may affect their rights and remedies under defamation law. For example, public persons and figures must generally prove a defendant published a defamatory statement with actual malice or reckless disregard, while private persons need only prove a defendant acted with ordinary negligence. Furthermore, issues of private and public concern will generally follow a similar burden of proof which plaintiffs must meet.
With Facebook having removed over 583 million fake accounts in the first quarter of 2018 alone, there’s no shortage of defamatory and malicious online content and users out there. Online libel and social media defamation is at an all-time high, and cases are springing up left and right.
And, it’s not likely to slow down, as Statista – an online market research and statistics portal – estimates by 2019, there will be over 2.77 billion social media users around the world (nearly a 400 million increase from 2017). Additionally, a 2012 Nielsen report noted that Internet users have continually chosen to spend more time on social media websites and applications more than any other category of website.
Before diving into three defamation social media cases, let’s first understand one core concept driving the mass sharing and dissemination (and ultimately defamation) of information and content on social media – the concept of social authority. Social media has built its virality and luster through the pillars of social authority, meaning users are able to participate in and build significant influence in conversations, thinking, and society through a finely tuned and well-crafted social media message.
Without such social construct, social media would likely not have achieved such large-scale adoption and praise, and we would not likely be looking at the three below cases.
Below are three notable defamation social media cases:
Jacobus v. Trump: Twitter & Nonactionable Opinion
Prior to Donald Trump’s presidential run and subsequent inauguration in January of 2017, the plaintiff – Cheryl Jacobus – received a message from a Trump campaign worker asking if she’d have any interest in becoming the Trump campaign’s communications director. Jacobus, a well known “political strategist and public relations consultant,” subsequently met with several campaign workers and provided her salary requirements, along with a desired interest in the position.
In a follow-up meeting, Jacobus and two campaign workers engaged in discussion about communications issues, with one campaign worker becoming agitated, telling Jacobus she had “no idea how FOX works” (in reference to FOX Television Network). Jacobus ultimately excused herself from the meeting and opted out of pursuing the position further.
In June, 2015, Donald Trump formally announced his candidacy for President of the United States. In the months following, Jacobus, in her role as a political commentator and strategist, frequently appeared on television, both criticizing and defending Trump in various ways. Some notable comments by Jacobus include calling Trump a “bad debater,” and that he “comes off like a third grader faking his way through an oral report on current affairs.”
After appearing on CNN in February 2016 to refute claims that Trump’s campaign was self-funded, Jacobus became the subject of a series of tweets about her past bid for employment with the Trump campaign.
“Great job on @donlemon tonight @kayleighmcenany @cherijacobus begged us for a job. We said no and she went hostile. A real dummy! @CNN.”
“Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!”
What followed was a defamation action – specifically, a libel per se action – commenced by the plaintiff (Jacobus), accusing Trump and his campaign team of accusing her of unprofessional conduct. Jacobus argued that such Tweets and statements were intended to, and ultimately did, injure her reputation in her professional field and cost her potential future professional opportunities.
When analyzing the defamatory nature of the statements, the Court referenced several established principles of defamation law, including:
- Hyperbole: “Loose, figurative or hyperbolic statements, even if deprecating the plaintiff, are not actionable.” (Dillon, 261 AD2d at 38, citing Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 152 , and Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, 77 NY2d 235, 244 , cert denied 500 US 954 .).
- Public Debate: “As context is key (Thomas H., 18 NY3d at 584-585; see Brahms v Carver, 33 F Supp 3d 192, 198-199 [ED NY 2014] [citing examples]), defamatory statements advanced during the course of a heated public debate, during which an audience would reasonably anticipate the use of “epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole,” are not actionable (Frechtman, 115 AD3d at 106, quoting Steinhilber, 68 NY2d at 294).”
- Defamation Per Se: “The challenged statement “must be more than a general reflection upon [the plaintiff’s] character or qualities…. [it] must reflect on her performance or be incompatible with the proper conduct of her business” (Golub v Enquirer/Star Group, 89 NY2d 1074, 1076  [citations omitted]), and relate to “a matter of significance and importance for that purpose” (Liberman, 80 NY2d at 436,citing Prosser & Keeton, Torts § 112 at 791 [5th ed 1984]; see also Kerik v Tacopina, 64 F Supp 3d 542, 570 [SD NY 2014]).”
When applied to the case at hand, the Court found the plaintiff’s “having begged for a job” to be reasonably loose, figurative, and hyperbolic, and that Trump’s past Tweets criticizing his critics (ex. Calling them “dope,” “dummy,” “totally biased loser”) all deflected serious consideration which should not be taken seriously. The Court ultimately held that a reasonable reader would recognize Trump’s statements to be opinion, even if when viewed in isolation they could be found to convey facts.
Facebook Defamation & $500,000 Judgment
Described by one law professor as a “stunning” amount, a private defamation case in North Carolina came to a close in February, 2017 after a Buncombe County Superior Court found a Facebook post stating, “I didn’t get drunk and kill my kid,” amounted to actionable libel.
In 1976, the plaintiff, Davyne Dial, lost her 11-year-old son to an accidental shooting by another boy. Keep in mind that she was not involved in any way, shape, or form. In a Facebook post relating to Dial, a general manager at a local radio station, Jacquelyn Hammond posted a message implying Dial had gotten drunk in 1976 and killed her child. It was suspected Hammond’s Facebook post was spurred on by the recent deterioration of their relationship after a failed sale of WPVM (the local radio station).
Dial noted how the comment and following attention made her relive the loss of her child and caused her great emotional distress. Hammond argued that the post was “mistakenly placed” in the Facebook thread in contention, and was not intended for Dial, noting that she had removed the comment and posted it in the proper forum shortly after its placement. Additionally, Hammond stated that she had no idea the misplacement of such statement had any importance to anyone in the Facebook forum.
Well, that didn’t exactly hold up, as there was sufficient evidence from another Facebook exchange to prove that Hammond had known such malicious and defamatory comments to be about Dial. Ultimately, after realizing Dial and her attorney were “really gung-ho on going to court,” Hammond signed the settlement agreement, which awarded $250,000 in actual damages to Dial and $250,000 in punitive damages (for a total settlement of $500,000).
Not only was the emotional pain inflicted on Dial all too real, but so was the damage to her personal and professional reputation, as the statement in question accused Dial of the commission of a felony crime (murder or manslaughter). Dial concluded that she proceeded with a defamation lawsuit to “make a statement to the community that you can’t get on social media and run your mouth without consequences.”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid, Free Speech, & Retweets
In June, 2018, a contentious debate emerged over President Trump’s family separation policy, which lead to a tweeted photograph by activist Alan Vargas of a woman, Roslyn La Liberte, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat yelling at a high school student during a civil council meeting. The woman in the photo, according to Vagas’ tweet, was said to have called the student several derogatory names, telling him he was “going to be the first deported.”
MSNBC host Joy Reid simply hit the retweet button, broadcasting the tweet to her 1.2 million Twitter followers. Subsequently, it came to light that the woman in the “Make America Great Again” did not in fact say such hurtful things to the student, with Reid recognizing her wrong a week later, noting in a tweeted apology, “It appears I got this wrong.” Well, as one could guess, according to La Liberte, the apology was insufficient, and Reid was slapped with a defamation suit on September 25th, 2018, which requested punitive damages (to be addressed below).
While several of Reid’s social media posts are alluded to and at issue in the present lawsuit, what’s most interesting, is Reid’s retweet of Vargas’ comments. “Certainly, a retweet is a form of republication,” as noted by Marvin Putman, an entertainment lawyer for Latham & Watkins. Other legal experts seem to be torn on the matter, unsure of where a retweet falls within the realm of United States defamation and libel.
Furthermore, La Liberte is not a public figure, and as such is not subjected to the legal standard of actual malice when bringing a defamation claim. However, the retweet in question concerns a highly public issue and one of national prominence – immigration. And, we are all familiar with the Twitter profiles which explicitly state, “a retweet does not equal an endorsement,” another factor complicating the matter.
So, does an explicit waiver of a non-endorsement absolve a retweeter from defamation liability for a retweet?We’ll just have to wait and see. What Twitter and other social media users should take away is the fact that unless the contents of a tweet or post have been independently verified as true or false, then one should generally refrain from retweeting it.
Curious to read up on three other notable defamation and libel cases involving libelous tweets (and James Woods)? Check out our comprehensive Twitter defamation blog post here, where we tackle three huge ‘Twibel’ cases, walk you through Twitter’s abuse policies, what a Twitter ‘canoe’ is, and how to report slander and libel on Twitter.
Social Media Defamation Removal Tip: Generally, when confronting social media defamation and other libelous online comments, we recommend injured parties against responding to them. Doing so could not only add fuel to the fire, but also draw more unwanted attention to the matter.
If you’ve been the victim of libelous comments or posts on social media and want to remove it immediately, contact the defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law now to explore your legal options.
At Minc Law, we support a nearly 100% online defamation removal and takedown rate, have removed over 25,000 pieces of defamatory online content, and have litigated in over 19 states and 3 countries. And, we do it all for a flat, reasonable fee.
The defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law know U.S. defamation law and social media slander!
The online abuse stops now!
One of the most daunting parts about bringing a defamation action for defamatory and libelous online content and comments is determining who exactly you can sue. While it may seem like the obvious path is to hold the website or Internet Service Provider (ISP) accountable, that’s not always the most practical and is often the most complicated of all processes.
In this section, we’re going to take you through the key piece of legislation immunizing social media websites and other user-generated content platforms, along with who you can actually hold liable for social media defamation and slander.
The Communications Decency Act: Immunizing ISPs & Websites
Also known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) is a landmark piece of legislation passed which protects Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and websites from defamation liability for information and comments posted by third parties.
Specifically, the CDA immunizes entities which are providers of an “interactive computer service,” or user generated content platform (UGC), and reads:
“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.”
In assessing whether a website or ISP should receive immunity and protection under the CDA, courts will apply a three-pronged test, which requires:
- The defendant (ISP or website) be a provider or user” of an interactive computer service
- The action must treat the defendant as the actual publisher or speaker of the defamatory or offensive content in question
- The defamatory or offensive content in question actually be provided and published by another information content provider (ex. The defendant is not actually the one who crafted or created the offensive content)
Should it be found that the ISP or website in question was not the actual provider or publisher of the defamatory and offensive content, then they will not be liable for a defamation claim. Think of an ISP or website in this case as a telephone provider and company – just as telephone companies are not held liable for the nefarious and criminal acts conducted across their phone lines, ISPs and certain websites (UGCs) are not held liable for online defamation and malicious comments posted on their forum or site.
So, who can I sue for social media defamation and malicious online attacks? Unless your claim falls under one of the limited exceptions prescribed for in the CDA, your best bet when bringing an online defamation action is to hold the individual poster or commenter liable.
However, it can often be difficult to locate such person, so we strongly recommend you reach out to an experienced defamation removal attorney. Approaching online defamation alone is not the answer, as it’s a highly complex and nuanced area of law and one that’s constantly evolving. Working with an online defamation attorney will help ease the identification process and make sure you don’t miss any important filing or procedural requirements.
How to Stop Social Media Slander & Defamation
There’s several free and easy steps a person can take to stop social media slander and other online defamation. Should a person fail to stop online defamation and other libelous content dead in its tracks, it could potentially be copied, syndicated, duplicated, and disseminated to all corners of the internet – making for a difficult and arduous takedown/removal process.
In this section, we’re going to take you through a few free and easy ways to prevent malicious online attacks and mitigate the damage done by them.
- Copyright infringement: While the CDA is often seen as an all-encompassing and immunizing piece of legislation for ISPs and websites, there are several exceptions – one of the major exceptions being copyright infringement. If a website or ISP is given notice of intellectual property infringement on their platform, they will often be required to remove it immediately. Such exception also extends to trademark infringement and patents.
- Google Alerts: Setting up a Google Alerts account and notifications is an effective way to monitor your online reputation and brand. All you need to do is create an account, enter specific keywords you’d like to monitor and keep an eye on (specifically, your name), and then sit back and wait. Once your name or any of your inputted keywords are mentioned, you’ll promptly be notified, enabling you to confront online defamation and libel before it has time to sit and spread.
- Cease & Desist: Sending a cease and desist letter is an alternative, yet effective way to let a person you mean business. While the party may ultimately choose to ignore the cease and desist altogether, more often than not, it will achieve its intended effect. Furthermore, sending a cease and desist is free and relatively straightforward to draft.
- Create positive content: Google’s search algorithm rewards positive content, meaning content which is constructive and useful will rank higher in search results than content which has little or no informational value. Starting your own blog and creating your own content is an effective way to suppress negative and defamatory search results. Keep in mind however, that doing so will not permanently remove false and defamatory online content, only suppress it. Furthermore, openly commenting on popular websites and forums is an effective way to climb the Google search result ranks.
- Just ask: Most social media websites will have policies and content guidelines in place to protect users and innocent persons, so emailing one of the support channels is a viable option for removing slander and defamation from social media websites.
Online Reputation & Brand Management Tip: If you’re looking to keep up with how your brand or business is viewed by the general public, we strongly recommend establishing an online reputation and brand monitoring budget. Doing so is not only an effective way to gain constructive feedback about your product or business, but it’s also extremely effective at identifying potential intellectual property infringers.
Now, let’s turn to the most common damages awarded for social media defamation and slander claims.
As we noted in Section 2, a core element of social media libel and defamation claims is “damage,” meaning the plaintiff or victim in question must have suffered harm or damage as a result of the false assertion of fact (defamatory statement). When bringing a defamation or slander action, plaintiffs will generally include a “prayer for relief,” or description of the remedies and damages sought.
Below are four of the most commonly sought damages in social media defamation cases:
Presumed Damages & Libel Per Se
If you’re unfamiliar with the legal doctrine of defamation per se (libel per se & slander per se), we strongly recommend you check out our detailed blog post here. At its most basic, defamation and libel per se will concern itself with four categories of statements, namely:
- Statements imputing a loathsome disease on the plaintiff,
- Statements imputing unchastity on the plaintiff,
- Statements which allege the plaintiff has committed a crime, and
- Statements which tend to harm a person’s business, profession, trade, or livelihood.
United States defamation law has determined the above four statements to be so inherently defamatory and inflammatory, that a plaintiff need not actually prove they suffered harm or damage as a result of the statement.
So, if you encounter a false and defamatory statement on social media which alludes to any one of the four statements, then there’s a good chance that presumed damages will be sought. For example, it’s not uncommon to find libelous Facebook posts which allude to another person as having an extra-marital affair or of having been unfaithful to their spouse.
Special Damages & Libel Per Quod
Just as libel per se and defamation per se is associated with presumed damages, the legal doctrine of defamation per quod (libel per quod & slander per quod) is associated with special damages. For those unsure of what defamation per quod exactly is, it’s effectively every type of statement which does not fall into a ‘per se’ category, and as such, requires the plaintiff provide supporting and extrinsic evidence of its defamatory nature.
In the context of libel and social media, there’s a good chance the statement in question might not appear outright to be defamatory. So, it is imperative for a plaintiff to collect and document supporting evidence of its libelous manner. Furthermore, the plaintiff will be required to show that they suffered a special type of harm as a result of the statement in question.
Some common examples of special damages include; monetary losses, lost wages and earnings, and damages which “flow from” defamatory conduct/statement.
So, if a person has been victim of social media libel and slander, and has lost their job as a result, they may just have a claim for special damages.
Actual Damages: Real & Tangible Injury
As their name implies, actual damages are real damages awarded to a plaintiff and social media defamation victim for the actual loss or injuries incurred as a result of the statement(s) in question. Actual damages may also be referred to as “compensatory damages,” as they are awarded to try and make the plaintiff “whole again” through compensation.
Some United States courts have ruled that personal humiliation and mental anguish will both give rise to a claim for actual damages, as they are a real and tangible effect of a false and libelous statement. Actual damages can also take form in that of a party’s loss of income, medical expenses, or business losses.
Note that when confronting online defamation and libel, it can sometimes be difficult to prove actual damages, so we strongly recommend consulting an experienced defamation attorney to better understand your rights and remedies.
Punitive Damages: Awarded to Punish For Malicious Social Media Publications
In certain cases, a defendant has posted content or messages on social media which they know for a fact to be false, or they recklessly chose to disregard the potential falsity of the statement. In such instances, a plaintiff may seek punitive damages – also known as “exemplary damages.”
Punitive damages are awards which are granted to a social media defamation plaintiff when the defendant has acted especially maliciously or recklessly when publishing libelous comments and content online. They are often awarded in instances and cases where actual (compensatory) damages are insufficient or in cases of undercompensation. Or, as noted above in the case of Dial and Hammond, punitive damages amounting to $250,000 were awarded to a grieving mother who was falsely accused of killing her child in 1976.
Finally, it’s worth noting that punitive damages are generally only awarded in select cases, as state’s will have differing definitions and levels of what exactly constitutes actual malice, reckless disregard, and wanton conduct. It bears repeating, reaching out to an experienced defamation removal attorney is your best bet for understanding your rights and state’s legal formalities and definitions.
Defamation Removal Tip: Remember, depending on the form in which the defamation was conveyed, there may be differing lawsuit formalities and requirements. For example, slander claims generally must be brought before libel claims due to the fleeting nature of their evidence. If you’re unsure of your state’s respective defamation statute of limitations, we recommend you consult an experienced defamation lawyer immediately! Doing so could be the difference between a successful defamation lawsuit and having it dismissed altogether.
Work With the Defamation of Character Lawyers of Minc Law Today!
Have you been the victim of social media defamation or slander? Contact the defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law now!
At Minc Law, our experienced (and nationally recognized) defamation removal attorneys have secured the effective and permanent removal of over 25,000 pieces of libelous online content, litigated in over 19 states and 3 countries, and boast a nearly 100% removal rate. And, we do it all for a flat, reasonable fee. Furthermore, the online defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law handle revenge porn takedowns and removals.
So, if you’ve found an unconsented and inappropriate picture of yourself online, or been the target of malicious and false online attacks and comments, contact us today!
Here’s what you can expect when working with the Cleveland-based Minc Law defamation attorneys:
- Respect & Courtesy: At Minc Law, we understand how invasive and stressful online defamation is, therefore, always know that we’re on your side. After all, your goals are our goals. We’re here to advance your best interests!
- Open Dialogue & Communication: Some defamation attorneys go missing once the defamation removal process has begun. Not us. We understand how important it is to be updated and kept in the loop about your case, so rest assured you’re in good hands.
- Websites & Businesses Respond to Us: As noted above, we’ve worked tirelessly with countless content managers, website administrators, and third-party arbitration firms to secure the swift and effective removal of over 25,000 pieces of libelous content. Just know that businesses and websites respond to us!
What are you waiting for? Don’t hesitate! The longer you let online defamation and libel sit and spread on the Internet, the more damage it’s going to do to your personal and professional life! Let’s put this wildfire out before it starts.