Someone has posted something false and damaging about you, on social media, a review site, a forum or a blog. Can you sue? In England and Wales the answer is often yes, but defamation law sets some real hurdles, and suing is not always the quickest way to fix the problem. Here is a plain-English guide.
What counts as defamation?
Defamation is the publication of a statement that harms your reputation, broadly, one that would make ordinary, reasonable people think less of you, or avoid you. It comes in two forms:
- Libel, defamation in a permanent form. An online post, tweet, review or article is libel.
- Slander, defamation in a transient form, typically the spoken word.
Because online posts are written and stored, online defamation is libel.
The "serious harm" hurdle
You cannot sue over every unkind or untrue comment. Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication "has caused or is likely to cause serious harm" to your reputation. For a business that trades for profit, "serious harm" means serious financial loss. This threshold is designed to keep trivial cases out of court, so the post must do real damage to your standing, not merely annoy or offend you.
You must be identifiable
The statement must be about you, either naming you or containing enough detail that people who know you would realise it refers to you. You do not have to be named expressly.
The main defences (why some claims fail)
Even a damaging, identifying statement is not actionable if the person who posted it has a defence. The key ones are:
- Truth (s 2). If the statement is substantially true, that is a complete defence. The burden is on the defendant to prove truth, but if what they said is true, you cannot win.
- Honest opinion (s 3). A genuinely held opinion (not a statement of fact), based on facts that existed at the time, is protected. "In my opinion this trader is dishonest" may be treated differently from a flat factual assertion.
- Publication on a matter of public interest (s 4). If the statement was on a matter of public interest and the publisher reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest, it is protected.
- Privilege. Some occasions attract absolute or qualified privilege (for example, fair and accurate reports of court proceedings).
So before suing, ask honestly whether the post is true, or a genuine opinion, or on a matter of public interest, because those are the points a court will test.
Time limit: act quickly
Defamation has a short limitation period of one year from publication (Limitation Act 1980). The single publication rule (s 8 of the 2013 Act) means the clock generally runs from the first publication, not from each time the page is later viewed. Do not delay.
Who can you sue, and the problem of anonymous posters
You can sue the author, editor or commercial publisher of the statement. The law discourages suing mere intermediaries: a court has no jurisdiction over someone who is not the author/editor/publisher unless it is not reasonably practicable to sue one of those (s 10), and there is a special defence for website operators who did not post the material themselves (s 5), provided they engage with the statutory complaints process.
If the poster is anonymous, you may need a court order (a Norwich Pharmacal order) requiring the platform to disclose information that helps identify them.
Often faster than suing: getting the post removed
Litigation is slow and expensive. In practice, the first steps are usually:
- Report it to the platform. Most social networks, review sites and hosts have notice-and-takedown procedures for content that breaches their terms or the law.
- Search-engine removal. You can ask search engines to de-index certain results in some circumstances.
- A letter before action. A formal letter from you or a solicitor asking the author to remove the post, apologise and undertake not to repeat it often resolves matters.
- Court remedies if needed. A successful claim can lead to damages, an injunction, an order to remove the statement or stop distributing it, and publication of a summary of the judgment.
Related claims to consider
Depending on the facts, other routes may fit better than (or alongside) defamation:
- Harassment, a campaign of abusive posts may breach the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- Malicious falsehood, false statements causing financial loss, made maliciously.
- Data protection / privacy, where the post misuses your personal information or private facts.
Key takeaways
- Online posts are libel; you can sue if the statement is false, identifies you, and causes serious harm (s 1, Defamation Act 2013).
- Expect the defendant to rely on truth, honest opinion or public interest, assess those honestly first.
- The limitation period is just one year, usually from first publication, act promptly.
- Removal first (platform takedown, letter before action) is often faster than court; litigation gives damages, injunctions and removal orders if needed.
Sources
- Defamation Act 2013, ss 1 (serious harm), 2 (truth), 3 (honest opinion), 4 (public interest), 5 (website operators), 8 (single publication), 10 (jurisdiction over secondary publishers)
- Limitation Act 1980 (one-year limitation for defamation)
- Protection from Harassment Act 1997; common law of malicious falsehood; Norwich Pharmacal orders (identifying anonymous posters)
--- This article is general information about the law of England & Wales as at 2026, not legal advice. For advice on your circumstances, consult a qualified solicitor.