If the content is truly defamatory, then yes, you can get it removed. Then we have a short discussion about the definition of defamation, and a few examples of what is/isn’t defamatory. Sometimes the answer is pretty easy, but oftentimes it isn’t, and in those situations you can run into trouble getting the content removed because the comments may be protected by the First Amendment.

 

If we make it through these preliminary considerations, it then comes down to how badly you want the content removed, because unless the poster of the defamatory content yields to a cease & desist/demand letter, it usually takes a court order to defamatory content taken down from the internet.

 

For example, if you go to Google’s “Removing Content From Google” page, you’ll find a list of the various services/sites Google operates; here, we’re talking about Google search engine content, so you would select the G-Suite logo “Web Search” button. This takes you to a menu, and since none of the options accurately include removing defamatory content, you would select “I have a legal issue that is not mentioned above.” The next menu has an option for “I have located defamatory content in Google’s search results.” To proceed further, however, you will have to have an order issued by a court of law, which also requires you to fill out this court order form.

 

That’s great, if you already have the court order, but what if you don’t—how do you get a court order? This is where the process become difficult, especially for non-lawyers. Before a court can issue an order, you have to create a case, and request relief that the court has the authority to grant. This means filing a lawsuit. Here, you’d need to file a complaint for defamation against the person/entity responsible for the defamatory web content.

 

If the poster’s identity is unknown, you have to sue them as “John Doe,” and then follow additional steps to serve a subpoena on the website hosting the defamatory content, which will usually allow you to at least discover the IP address responsible for the defamatory post. Once you have the IP address, you can serve another subpoena on the Internet Service Provider associated with the IP address, requesting the account holder’s identity (which may or may not be the same person who posted the defamatory content). But you still aren’t entitled to a court order yet, because you haven’t demonstrated that you’re entitled to any relief. You will have to proceed through the lawsuit, and present evidence that the defendant posted defamatory content about you.

 

For most people, this process is intimidating, and time consuming at best, which is why they hire a law firm to handle it. Because the law is always catching up to technology, defamation law is still catching up to the internet. Perhaps the future will bring easier, faster, less daunting ways of removing defamatory content from the internet, but in the meantime there are law firms that specialize in exactly this kind of work.

 

Generally, defamation is a knowingly false statement of fact that is damaging to the reputation of a person or business.  There are two types of defamation: spoken (slander) and written (libel). Although it is not currently a legal term of art, a third category of defamation or rather, a sub-category of libel, has emerged in recent years and has been coined “Twibel.” Twibel isn’t strictly limited to libel appearing on Twitter, however.  It includes any libelous statement that appears on the Internet in any forum.

 

Steps to Take When You are a Twibel Target

 

If defamatory material is posted about you on the Internet and you know – or strongly suspect – who wrote it, you have several options.  First, you can contact the person and demand that they voluntarily remove the false statement(s). Often you will get no response. Depending on the perpetrator, this could also lead to additional statements – or your correspondence itself – being published.

 

I constantly remind my clients to be cautious in what they write in their emails or post on their social media accounts.  Anything that you put out into the Internet world can, and often will, be used against you in a way you had never intended.  Often a well-written letter from your lawyer is all it takes to have the content removed.

 

Another option – irrespective of whether the perpetrator is anonymous – is to contact the ISP, website or webhost directly to request that the statements be removed.  Of course, this usually is the first step if you cannot identify the person who posted the defamatory statement(s). 

 

Always review the relevant website’s Terms to ensure that you understand its required procedure (if it has one), are sending your correspondence to the appropriate contact person, and, if relevant, are citing to a specific violation of that site’s Terms.  Depending on the website, webhost or ISP and depending on the content of the statement itself, this may result in the removal of the material or redaction of the worst of it.  Otherwise, there may be an automatic refusal to take down or disable access to anything without a court order.

 

To Sue or Not to Sue….

In many cases, your only option may be to commence litigation.  To the extent that the website, webhost or ISP requires a court order before revealing an anonymous user’s identity or removing anything from the website, your task may become more challenging.  Your likelihood of success in obtaining the subpoena, identifying the perpetrator and having the content removed will depend on several factors, including the jurisdiction that you’re filing the lawsuit in (and the burden that its laws place on you as the plaintiff), the context of the statement(s) at issue and your status (as a public or a private figure).  Depending on the court that you are in, a determination may be made by the judge as to whether you have a valid case – before the court will even consider issuing a subpoena.

 

One important element to consider before commencing a lawsuit is your ability to prove your damages.  In any complex litigation, this may be a daunting task.  Establishing reputational damage in a defamation case will often require a good amount of evidence.  Depending on the laws of your jurisdiction, if you can establish defamation per se, which includes injurious statements about another’s trade, business, or profession, damages are typically presumed.

 

No One Wants to Be SLAPPed

In addition to the above-mentioned considerations, before commencing a defamation lawsuit, you should contemplate whether your lawsuit may be challenged as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, more commonly known by its acronym, “SLAPP.”  A SLAPP is essentially a meritless lawsuit filed against a defendant in retaliation for speaking out on an issue of public concern, such as cases involving celebrities, government officials or large companies.  SLAPPs often are filed by a plaintiff with deep pockets with the goal of chilling an individual’s freedom of speech and forcing him or her to incur significant legal fees to defend the case.

 

In many states that have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation, a SLAPP defendant can “SLAPPback” by, among other things, filing an early motion to strike the complaint or a lawsuit seeking attorneys’ fees and punitive damages for malicious prosecution.

Of course, if your lawsuit is not frivolous and does not implicate a “public” issue, there really should be no SLAPPback concern.

 

Twibel of a Celebrity: A Case Study

An interesting example tying this discussion together involves the actor, James Woods.  In brief, Woods filed a $10 million lawsuit for defamation and invasion of privacy by false light against an anonymous Twitter user who posted a tweet stating that Woods was a cocaine addict.  The defendant, sued as John Doe a/k/a “Abe List” (his Twitter handle), promptly fired back with an anti-SLAPP motion.  Abe List’s attorneys characterized the tweet as constitutionally-protected speech that is “part of Twitter’s culture of political hyperbole.”

 

In analyzing the anti-SLAPP motion, the court considered whether Woods established a probability that he would prevail on his defamation claim and specifically addressed the issue of whether the statement could be characterized as an opinion – and, therefore, not defamation – or a statement of fact.  In a rollercoaster of a lawsuit, the court issued a tentative ruling indicating that the anti-SLAPP motion would be granted and the case dismissed.  However, the judge apparently changed his mind after a hearing, considered the tweet a statement of fact, not opinion, and denied the motion.

 

Not surprisingly, a legal battle ensued to uncover “Abe List’s” identity.  According to the anonymous defendant’s attorney, Abe List died after the lawsuit was filed.  Through discovery and motion practice, Woods sought to compel counsel to reveal its client’s identity.  Counsel fought back with privacy and attorney-client privilege arguments.  Earlier this year, the court ordered Abe List’s counsel to identify him and his heirs and personal representative(s).  Further, because there was a dispute as to the reality of Abe List’s death itself, the court ordered Abe List’s counsel to provide information about his client’s death.  The action is still pending as of the date of this publication.

 

Getting Rid of All the Rest

If negative material is posted about you or your business and it is not per se infringing, defamatory or otherwise prohibited, there still may be a way to have it removed from the Internet.

 

Can This Material Be Removed?

In determining the answer to that question, there are several additional questions to consider.  Has your business been affected by the content?  Has there been any actual harm to your business that you can prove?  Have you lost customers or received inquiries that likely stemmed from the negative content?

Depending on your answer, you may be able to convince the webhost/ISP/website to redact some or all the content, particularly if it violates any of the site’s Terms or is particularly objectionable.

Depending on the laws of your jurisdiction and the specific facts of your situation, there may also be potential claims that your counsel could threaten – and prosecute – against the individual, such as intentional interference with prospective business relations, tortious interference with contract, etc.

 

Removing Infringing Online Material 

Whether someone copies and publishes a photograph that you took, a blog post that you wrote or completely mirrors your webpage and passes it off as their own, you have several legal rights.  One of the most cost-efficient and expeditious options available to you arises under a federal law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”).  This issue is so important that I have written a separate article about it here: “Legal Options When Battling Online Copyright Infringement”.

 

Giving Negative Content a Proper Burial

Most people searching the Internet typically don’t click through all the pages of results.  They generally review the top results and stop there.

If all else fails, there are ways to bury negative information on the Internet. That generally requires loading the Internet with positive content that will appear in search results about you and your business.  Your website, social media accounts and blogs are typically good places to start.  Of course, beware of flogs (fake blogs) because they can get you into real trouble.  Reputable websites featuring your name/business generally appear at the top of search results. 

 

In our opinion one of the least understood laws in this area is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or as it’s more popularly known, the Communications Decency Act, Section 230. If you read the law it may seem like nothing but a bunch of legalese but it’s fairly simple to provide a layman’s interpretation of what it means and how it applies to victims of Internet defamation.

 

The law differentiates between the actions of the third party that actually posts information and the host of the material, such as Google.  One explanation that often helps people understand is to think of the Google website as a big whiteboard in the sky on which people can anonymously write things. The outcome of the Communications Decency Act is that the person who writes on the whiteboard is legally responsible for what they write, but the whiteboard owner (for example, Google) is not required to police it.  This is why attempts to force Google to take material down, such as an attorney cease-and-desist letters, are so frequently ineffective. 

 

Beyond that there are significant legal issues involved with organizations like Google taking some material down and not others; as a result they frequently adopt a policy of not removing anything unless a court order is presented.

 

To better understand how this works let’s consider a couple of examples. In the first scenario the damaging material is located on a Google product such as Gmail, Blogger, Google Places, etc.  In the second scenario the damaging material is located on a site other than a Google product that shows up in Google search results.

 

Referring to the Google legal troubleshooter link that’s provided by Google for troubleshooting issues we can walk through both situations and see what happens.  For example, a request for removal of damaging information on a blogspot blog that is owned by Google leads to the series of screenshots seen below. Ultimatel,y because of the Communications Decency Act, it will take a court order to get the misinformation removed.  We’ll cover the details of getting a court order in a separate post, but if you have a serious issue you may want to visit a regular defamation services page

 

Let Us Help You Manage Your Online Reputation-Reputation Management Services that Work

Whether you are a small business or an individual, nobody is safe from attacks online. But there is something you can do about it. We are able to remove over 250,000 different web pages that may be defaming or hurting yourself or your company. If it’s not a website that we can permanently delete for you then our Online Reputation Management services are a perfect fit to help bury the unwanted press and replace it with truthful and positive press and editorial style content that you would want to have people see when they do a Google search.