Internet defamation

By Yair Cohen, Solicitor specialising in internet law

If someone has published something untrue about you that has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation, you might have a UK defamation claim. Libel is defamation in a permanent form: online posts, articles, tweets, videos, broadcasts. Slander is defamation in spoken form. On the internet, almost everything is libel.

Two practical points to start with. Time matters: the limitation period in defamation is one year from publication; act outside it and the court will normally strike out the claim. Evidence matters: screenshot, archive and date-stamp the publications before they are deleted. Notes of any consequences, such as lost work, lost contracts, mental-health impact, and conversations where someone has repeated the allegation back to you, are the building blocks of the serious-harm test.

If you are in that situation, this page sets out what the law says, what the procedure looks like, what realistic outcomes look like, and what a case our firm has won at trial looks like in practice. We have acted in a number of widely reported internet defamation matters in recent years, including Aaronson v Stones, Paisley v Linehan and the Kirat Assi matter that became the BBC's Sweet Bobby podcast. The worked example below is one of them.

What the law says

UK defamation is governed by the Defamation Act 2013, sitting on top of long-established common law. Five provisions of that Act do most of the work in nearly every claim, and it helps to know what each one is for before reading the rest of this page.

Section 1, the serious-harm threshold, is the gateway: a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation. For businesses (not for sole traders), serious harm requires serious financial loss. The modern test, fixed by the Supreme Court in Lachaux, looks at the actual or likely impact on reputation rather than at the inherent gravity of the words alone.

Section 2 is the defence of truth: a defendant who proves the substantial truth of the imputation wins. The burden sits on the defendant.

Section 3 is the honest opinion defence: it covers expressions of opinion, provided the opinion is recognisable as one and based on facts that existed at the time.

Section 4 is the public-interest defence: it is available where the statement was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest. "Reasonably believed" is an objective standard, and the bar is meaningfully higher than the speaker simply having thought so. The defence was tested to destruction in Aaronson v Stones, summarised below, where the court rejected it on this exact limb.

Section 8, the single publication rule, fixes the limitation clock: an online publication is treated as published when first uploaded, not each time it is read, so the one-year limitation period generally runs from upload.

How those tests work in practice is best seen in a worked judgment, which is what the case study below gives you: a case our firm acted in to judgment. For more on how the courts assess the meaning of a statement, a separate question from whether it caused serious harm, see our explainer on Chase Levels in defamation cases.

What the procedure looks like

If you decide to bring a defamation case, this is what the procedure would look like. Most cases settle long before trial, and the procedure is there to put the right pressure on the right points along the way.

1. Initial advice and risk assessment: in your first meeting with one of our specialist solicitors, we will go through the words complained of, who the likely defendants are, your prospects on the serious harm test, and the defences the other side is likely to run. We work through all of this with you so you can see the strength of your case and the risks involved, both legal, reputational and financial. We want you to make a balanced decision about whether to take the case forward and, if so, on what budget. The first meeting is offered as a fixed-fee consultation and typically takes one to two hours.
2. OSINT and discovery: we carry out the open-source intelligence work in-house with our own investigators and developers. Working from what you give us, we will identify anonymous publishers, map accounts and patterns of behaviour, recover deleted content and trace republication across other sites. Keeping this work under one roof rather than briefing it out tends to keep your costs down and your timeline tight. Typically one to two days.
3. Preservation and evidence: we will preserve the evidence with you before anything is sent to the publisher. That means screenshots, archived links from the Wayback Machine and archive.today, and witness statements from people you know who saw or repeated the allegations. You will be best placed to identify those witnesses, and we will guide you on what each statement needs to cover.
4. Letter of claim or cease and desist: once you are happy with the strategy, we will send the opening shot. Sometimes a focused cease and desist letter is enough on its own. For fuller cases we send a letter of claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims, identifying the words, the meaning attributed to them, the harm you have suffered, and the remedies you are seeking (apology, undertakings, removal, damages, costs). The recipient is normally given 14 to 28 days to respond.
5. The defendant's response: we work through the response with you. Full apology and settlement, a partial offer to settle, and outright denial are the three common outcomes, and your reaction to each shapes the next move. Many cases resolve here because the cost of fighting outweighs the cost of putting it right. The quickest resolution we have had was three hours from hand-delivering a letter of claim. The longest was over two years.
6. Issue of claim: if the matter is not resolved at the letter stage, we will draft particulars of claim and issue proceedings with you. Court fees are tied to claim value and can run to several thousand pounds. If you cannot pay them upfront, we will help you apply for a fee remission, where the court forgoes the court fees subject to a detailed application showing financial hardship.
7. Defence and reply: the defendant pleads truth, honest opinion, public interest, or a combination. We will sit down with you and take the defence apart point by point, then file the reply. Pre-trial review and disclosure follow.
8. Trial or settlement: most cases settle at or before pre-trial review; some go to trial. If yours goes to trial, defamation cases are typically tried by judge alone and last between three and ten days. We will brief counsel with you and prepare you for any evidence you give in court.
9. Judgment and enforcement: if you win at trial, the available remedies are damages, declarations of falsity, injunctions and costs. We will enforce the orders for you. Enforcement against UK defendants is straightforward; against foreign defendants it takes further steps and we will guide you through the route that fits your case.

Realistic timeline end-to-end: 6 to 18 months from instruction to resolution for a case that settles; 12 to 24 months for a case that goes to trial.

Realistic cost bands depend on complexity:

• A single cease and desist letter resolving a one-off publication: four figures (often £3,500 to £9,000 plus VAT).
• Removal and apology settled at letter-of-claim stage on a more complex publication or with multiple defendants: low five figures.
• Case taken to issued proceedings and settled before trial: mid five to low six figures.
• Case fought to trial: high five to mid six figures, recoverable in part from the losing party if you win.
• Generally speaking, you may recover some or all of your legal costs at any stage of the proceedings, even if they conclude by way of a settlement.

We will discuss costs with you at every stage. If a case is not worth taking on, we will tell you that at the fixed-fee initial consultation rather than at three months in.

A defamation case is one of several tools that can deliver the result you actually want, which is closure and the restoration of your reputation. We pick the right tool for the result, not the result that suits the tool.

What defences a defendant may raise

When you bring a defamation case, the question that decides whether it lands well or badly is usually whether the defendant has a real defence. The defences are set out in the Defamation Act 2013, alongside the common-law defences that survived the Act.

Truth (section 2) is the heaviest defence. If the defendant can prove that the substantive sting of what they published was true, the claim falls. Many defended defamation cases come down to a truth fight, and the way the truth defence is stripped back under disclosure and cross-examination is often the centre of trial strategy.

Honest opinion (section 3) protects genuinely held opinions where the basis of the opinion was indicated and an honest person could have held that view. The defence is narrower than it sounds and does not protect statements of fact dressed up as opinion.

Publication on a matter of public interest (section 4) protects responsible journalism and other contributions to public-interest debate. The section has two limbs: the publication has to be on a matter of public interest, and the defendant has to have held a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest. Both limbs have to be made out; subjective belief on its own is not enough.

Absolute and qualified privilege protect statements made in particular settings, such as parliamentary debate, court proceedings, certain employment references, and reports of court and parliamentary proceedings.

The safe-harbour provisions for website operators (section 5) limit liability where the operator did not post the material themselves and helps the claimant identify the underlying publisher.

For most defended cases, the question that decides the outcome is whether truth or public interest holds up under disclosure and cross-examination. The case study below sets out how those two defences played out in a recent trial we conducted.

How these defences play out at trial: Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 (KB)

We acted for the successful Claimant in Aaronson v Stones [2023] EWHC 2399 (KB), an internet libel claim tried over four days in the Media and Communications List of the King's Bench Division in December 2022, with judgment handed down on 13 October 2023 by Mr Justice Julian Knowles. Counsel for the Claimant, instructed by Cohen Davis Solicitors, were Gervase de Wilde and Luke Browne.

The allegations: between 2020 and 2021 the Defendant, Marcus Stones (Mickey Taylor), published a series of tweets and a YouTube video alleging that our client Jack Aaronson (Dominic Ford) had raped a number of men and was therefore a serial rapist. The publications spread quickly across Twitter and the wider adult-entertainment industry. The Defendant's pleaded defences were truth (Defamation Act 2013, s 2) and publication on a matter of public interest (s 4).

The legal strategy: three load-bearing decisions shaped the case. On serious harm, we ran the inferential case approved in Lachaux, supported by evidence of repetition and consequence: republication by third parties, performers and fans deleting accounts, industry media picking up the story, and the mental-health and business impact on the Claimant. On truth, we attacked the defence by collapsing the Defendant's pleaded "multiple victims" case down to a single complainant in cross-examination, which the Defendant ultimately conceded. On public interest, we attacked the defence on the objectively reasonable belief limb of section 4(1)(b): even if the Defendant subjectively believed publication served the public interest, that belief had to be reasonable, and it was not.

The judgment: Mr Justice Knowles rejected both defences. On truth, the Defendant had failed to discharge the burden of proving the substantial truth of the imputation. On public interest, the judge held that none of the publications were on a matter of public interest within section 4(1)(a), and the Defendant's belief that publication was in the public interest was not objectively reasonable. The judge described the conduct as "a campaign of defamation of an extremely serious type which directly impacted upon many aspects of the Claimant's life, including his reputation; his business; and his mental well-being" (paragraph 434).

The outcome: general and aggravated damages of £110,000, an injunction restraining further publication, and an order under section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The full judgment is publicly available on BAILII, and as a PDF alongside our case summary at Aaronson v Stones case study.

What outcomes look like

Clients always ask, and the answer is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

Damages: UK defamation damages are not as large as US punitive awards. Indicative bracketing from recent years runs as follows.

• Serious harm but limited spread: £5,000 to £25,000.
• Significant spread, professional or reputational impact: £25,000 to £100,000.
• Grave allegations widely published, lasting impact: £100,000 to £250,000. Aaronson v Stones (£110,000) sits at the lower end of this band.
• The Court of Appeal has indicated that £350,000 is broadly the practical ceiling, reserved for the gravest cases.

Apology and vindication: for most claimants, the printed apology, the order striking the publication and the public finding that the allegation was false matter more than the cheque. Strategy is usually built around that.

Removal and injunctions: court orders restraining further publication and requiring removal are available, including against parties served outside the jurisdiction in appropriate cases. Pre-publication injunctions in defamation are rare because of the rule in Bonnard v Perryman: the court will not restrain publication if the defendant intends to defend on truth. Post-publication takedown and restraint orders are much more common.

Timelines: around 6 to 18 months to settlement, and 12 to 24 months to trial in most cases.

Defences that are often raised: truth (section 2), honest opinion (section 3), public interest (section 4), qualified privilege (common law and statutory), and the single publication rule (section 8) as a limitation argument. Knowing which the defendant is likely to run shapes the strategy from day one.

When a defamation case is not the right tool: sometimes the right action is an online harassment claim, a privacy claim, a data-protection erasure request, or a right-to-be-forgotten removal request rather than a defamation claim. That tends to be the case where the statements are true but their publication is unlawful for another reason, or where the publisher is unidentifiable. We will tell you if your case is genuinely defamation, or if a different route is faster and more cost-effective.

Why this firm

Cohen Davis Solicitors is the UK's first dedicated internet and social media law firm, with over 30 years' experience acting in cases where the publication, the audience and the harm are all online. The firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

What makes the difference on internet defamation specifically starts with our own investigators and developers in-house. We do our own OSINT, our own anonymous-poster identification work, and our own evidence preservation. Most firms brief that work out to third-party investigators, and the cost stacks up quickly. Keeping it under one roof tends to keep the cost down and the timeline tight, and means the lawyers are working off the same evidence as the people who found it rather than off a sanitised summary.

We understand the internet, front end and back end: how platforms moderate, how search engines index, how takedown channels actually work, how injunctions land on overseas operators, and what an ISP will and will not do without a court order. That technical literacy shapes the strategy from the first letter. It is the difference between a plan that sounds plausible and one that actually works on the platform you are dealing with.

We pick the right tool for the result, not the result that suits the tool. A defamation case is one of several instruments (defamation, harassment, privacy, data protection, search-removal) that can deliver what the reader actually wants, which is closure and the restoration of reputation. We are happy to tell a client up front when defamation is not their best route and to point them at the one that is.

We build every case as if it will go to trial: evidence preserved, witnesses identified, the serious-harm case constructed from the outset. That is almost always what makes the other side settle. Aaronson v Stones is the public example of what that looks like when a case does go the full distance, and our work in the Kirat Assi matter, which became the BBC's Sweet Bobby podcast, is another publicly reported example of the same approach applied to anonymous online harm.

Finally, we work closely with trusted attorneys around the world, particularly in the USA and Canada, many of them lawyers we have known and worked with for more than thirty years. Where a case crosses jurisdictions, that network allows us to act more effectively, and often more cost-efficiently, than firms that have to find and brief new overseas counsel on each matter. Those long-standing international connections help us coordinate matters smoothly, avoid duplication of work, and keep costs under control.

For more of the firm's work across internet defamation, see the Aaronson v Stones case study, the David Paisley v Graham Linehan defamation case, our broader defamation case studies, and our signature cases catalogue.

Frequently asked questions

Is what was published about me libel or slander?

Almost certainly libel. Libel covers anything written, recorded or broadcast, which includes online posts, tweets, YouTube videos, articles and reviews. Slander covers spoken words only and is much narrower in scope.

How long do I have to bring a defamation claim?

One year from the date of publication. For online posts, the single publication rule in section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 normally means the clock starts when the post was first uploaded, not each time it is viewed. Courts very rarely extend the limitation period in defamation, so acting promptly matters. If you genuinely could not have been aware of the publication at the time it first went up, for instance because search engines were not surfacing it, the court may grant a dispensation under section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980, as long as you act as soon as you do become aware. Mis-advice from a previous solicitor is unlikely on its own to justify a dispensation.

Will I have to go to court?

Most defamation cases settle before trial. In our experience, the majority of meritorious claims resolve at or before the issue of proceedings. The minority that go to trial are typically the cases where the defendant has decided to run a defence of truth. Even in cases that do go through the court process, our clients usually do not need to attend preliminary hearings, and we make the engagement with the court as straightforward as we can for them.

What does a defamation case cost?

A single cease and desist letter resolving a one-off publication can be a four-figure cost. A removal and apology settled at the letter-of-claim stage can run into the low five figures. A case fought to judgment runs into six figures, partly recoverable from the losing party. We provide a written costs estimate at every stage, starting with the fixed-fee initial consultation, where we work out together whether the case is worth running.

Can I get an apology and damages, or do I have to choose?

Both are available, and most settlements include both. For many clients the apology and removal matter more than the money. The court can also order a statement to be read out in open court and a published declaration of falsity. There is room for creativity in the remedies package, and where a defendant refuses to agree a joint statement in open court, the claimant can apply for a unilateral statement in open court so the matter still receives the public correction it warrants.

The person who defamed me is anonymous. Can I still do anything?

Yes. A Norwich Pharmacal Order, served on the platform that hosts the post or on intermediaries such as ISPs, can compel disclosure of the publisher's identity. We handle these regularly, often in parallel with the substantive defamation claim. Our work in the Kirat Assi matter (the case behind the BBC's Sweet Bobby podcast) is one of the more publicly known examples of this kind of identification work in practice. Our in-house investigators usually have a working hypothesis on identity before the order is even sought. A recent example of how these orders pair with an injunction and platform-side removal is set out in our note on harassment and disclosure injunctions against anonymous Instagram and social-media users; once the order is granted, serving it on the social media platforms and internet companies hosting the material is usually how the underlying content gets pulled down at the same time.

Is defamation illegal in the UK?

Defamation is unlawful but not criminal in England and Wales. It is a civil wrong dealt with through proceedings in the High Court. A defamation claimant can seek damages, an injunction, an apology and a correction, but not a criminal prosecution. The old offences of criminal libel were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Threats or harassment that travel alongside the same conduct can still be criminal even when the defamation itself is not.

How do I prove defamation?

You need to show three things: the statement was about you, it was published to at least one third party, and it caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your reputation. The serious harm test is in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 and is the threshold that filters out trivial complaints. For a business claimant, serious harm has to be shown as serious financial loss. Once these elements are made out, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish a defence.

What are the defences for a defamation claim?

The main defences are set out in the Defamation Act 2013, alongside the surviving common-law defences of absolute and qualified privilege. Truth (section 2) is a complete defence: if the defendant can prove that the substantive sting of the statement was true, the claim falls. Honest opinion (section 3) protects genuinely held opinions where the basis was indicated and an honest person could have held that view. Publication on a matter of public interest (section 4) covers responsible journalism and similar contributions to debate on issues the public has a legitimate interest in. Absolute and qualified privilege protect statements made in particular settings, such as parliamentary debate, court proceedings, and certain employment and reporting contexts. The safe-harbour provisions for website operators (section 5) limit liability where the operator did not post the material and helps the claimant identify the underlying publisher. Each defence carries technical requirements that have to be pleaded and evidenced from the outset.

Is it easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US?

Considerably. In the UK the claimant only has to prove publication and serious harm; the defendant then has to prove truth or another defence. In the US the First Amendment loads the position the other way: public figures have to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, which is a difficult test to satisfy. This structural difference is the reason London is sometimes described as a claimant-friendly jurisdiction in defamation work. American clients quite often choose the UK courts for this reason; we have acted for both individual and institutional US claimants in this position, including in Jack Aaronson v Marcus Stones and in the case of Frankie Rzucek.

How long does a defamation case take from start to finish?

A case resolved at the letter-before-action stage often closes within four to eight weeks. A case that reaches the issue of proceedings and settles before trial typically lasts nine to eighteen months. A defended case that goes through disclosure, witness statements and trial can last two to three years, sometimes longer. Cases that go all the way to trial tend to suffer further delays around listing windows and judicial availability. As a live example, the case of David Paisley v Graham Linehan has been ongoing for over two years as of June 2026 and may run for another six months or more. The pace is partly within the parties' control through pre-action engagement and partly set by the High Court's listing windows.

Can you go to the police about slander?

Not usually. Slander and the wider law of defamation are civil matters in England and Wales rather than criminal ones, so the police do not investigate them. If the same conduct also amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a malicious communications offence under the Communications Act 2003, or a hate crime under the Public Order Act 1986, those criminal routes are open in parallel with a civil defamation claim.

Who cannot sue for defamation in the UK?

A few categories of claimant are barred. The estate of a deceased person cannot bring or continue a defamation claim, so the dead cannot be defamed (the common-law rule). Local authorities and central government bodies cannot sue for defamation in their corporate capacity, following Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534. Individual officers within those bodies can still sue in their own personal capacity. Trading corporations can sue but only on proof of serious financial loss.

Who has the burden of proof in a defamation case?

In practice the burden splits between the parties. The claimant has to prove that a defamatory statement referring to them was published to a third party and caused serious harm to reputation. Once those elements are made out, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a defence, typically truth or honest opinion. The defendant can also raise the serious harm point at the preliminary stages of the case; where on the face of it the claimant cannot show realistic prospects of serious reputational or serious financial harm, the case can be dismissed before the defendant is required to file a defence. This split is one reason the defamation law in England and Wales is structurally more claimant-friendly than the US position, where the claimant carries almost the entire burden.

Can a defamation claim go to the small claims court?

No, only in unusual circumstances. Section 15 of the County Courts Act 1984 excludes defamation from the county court's jurisdiction, which means a defamation claim has to be issued in the High Court. The High Court can transfer the case down to the county court under section 40 of the same Act, but this rarely happens in practice given the specialist case-management needs of defamation work and the level of damages typically in play. Defamation claims in the High Court are case-managed by the specialist judges of the Media and Communications List, which cuts both ways. On one hand the parties get a small group of judges who know the law and the typical issues in depth. On the other hand, defamation used to be a jury-tried area; with jury trials now effectively gone, an experienced media judge can be a less close substitute for the layperson's perspective than the occasional defamation case heard by a judge with a broader civil docket.

Facing something similar? If untrue and damaging content about you is being published online and you would like to talk it through with a specialist solicitor, contact Cohen Davis Solicitors. The initial conversation is in confidence.