Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Strategies and Tactics to Battle Online Cyber-Defamation

By Ina B. Scher of Davis+Gilbert LLP & Daniel A. Dingerson of Davis+Gilbert LLP on May 4, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

With the ever-expanding role of social media and the Internet, negative reviews can spread virtually unchecked. Although some negative reviews are limited to statements of opinion that, generally, are legally protected, companies and individuals increasingly are subject to attacks that include false statements constituting online defamation.

The legal avenues for addressing defamatory comments and obtaining their removal from websites can be difficult to navigate. Generally speaking, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects Internet providers, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Yelp, from liability for content posted by their users, which creates little incentive — and, arguably, a disincentive — for these entities to self-police their sites. Accordingly, many sites require a court order or judgment before removing allegedly defamatory comments.

Moreover, some sites simply refuse to remove any posted material without a specific order finding the material is defamatory, and then they may remove only the limited portion of the online review deemed defamatory. Because reviews frequently are posted in multiple places, or reposted by numerous sites, it can be difficult and expensive to obtain orders relating to every unique occurrence of the information. Search engines can be asked to deindex defamatory material to remove the content from search results, though compliance is voluntary.

Further complicating matters, at least one state (California) recently prohibited contractual provisions that penalize customers and clients for posting negative comments.

Another issue is that online defamatory statements frequently are posted anonymously or via a pseudonym. That means a defendant must be identified before a judgment or order finding that an online statement is defamatory can be obtained.

In New York, two procedures aid efforts to identify anonymous online commentators

  • Filing for pre-litigation disclosure, for the limited purpose of obtaining discovery; and
  • Filing a “John Doe” complaint, which can be done prior to discovering the identity of a defendant.

These two procedures can be used to seek discovery from entities that possess information (such as IP addresses and customer details) needed to identify the poster.

Takeaways

  • A company subjected to online defamation first should determine if there has been a violation of the site’s terms of service; if so, the site often will remove that review without any legal process.
  • A court order that identifies the false statement typically will suffice to obtain removal from many reputable websites.
  • The best way to effectively neutralize defamatory postings from sites that refuse to remove the material is to request that search engines (Google, Yahoo!, and Bing) voluntarily “deindex” the pages with the defamatory material from their search index; although the information will continue to exist, searches will not reveal it.
Photo of Ina B. Scher of Davis+Gilbert LLP Ina B. Scher of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Advertising’s online expansion, unconventional marketing campaigns and influencer promotions have created uncharted legal territory. Ina Scher protects advertising industry leaders in this new world. Representing advertisers and advertising agencies in novel litigation and government investigations, Ina tempers the costly, disruptive and reputational risks…

Advertising’s online expansion, unconventional marketing campaigns and influencer promotions have created uncharted legal territory. Ina Scher protects advertising industry leaders in this new world. Representing advertisers and advertising agencies in novel litigation and government investigations, Ina tempers the costly, disruptive and reputational risks of claims by government regulators, consumer protection advocates and class action lawyers.

Whether resolving class allegations of false or misleading advertising or government inquiries into anti-competitive practices, Ina builds creative strategies that align with clients’ business goals. Her early career experience as a Manhattan Assistant District Attorney provides clients with in-depth perspectives on civil and criminal allegations — and a courtroom advocate uniquely qualified to stand up to prosecutors and opposing counsel.

Clients rely on Ina’s detailed case preparation and collegial-yet-formidable litigation approach in high-stakes regulatory and business disputes. She provides insightful case assessments that inform critical legal strategies and resources. While she is always trial-ready, she will not hesitate to negotiate an early settlement to save a client from negative publicity and costly injunctive relief. Ina is also deft at arguing strategic, dispositive summary judgment motions that avoid the uncertainty of trial.

Even after Ina has achieved a favorable outcome, she helps clients maximize the opportunity litigation presents to shore up best practices. They count on her preventive regulatory counsel to avoid further claims from the FTC, U.S. DOJ, state attorneys general, local authorities, competitors or wherever the next threat lurks.

Read more about Ina B. Scher of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailIna's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Daniel A. Dingerson of Davis+Gilbert LLP Daniel A. Dingerson of Davis+Gilbert LLP

Daniel Dingerson protects the interests of global advertising agencies, marketing companies, retailers and manufacturers in a wide range of complex commercial and trademark litigation and class actions. He resolves difficult business disputes, protects trademark rights and focuses on strategies to avoid costly litigation.…

Daniel Dingerson protects the interests of global advertising agencies, marketing companies, retailers and manufacturers in a wide range of complex commercial and trademark litigation and class actions. He resolves difficult business disputes, protects trademark rights and focuses on strategies to avoid costly litigation.

Daniel’s broad-based experience across a range of industries helps him understand the perspectives of his clients, their partners and their adversaries and provide insight to achieve practical and creative solutions. He drives efficient and effective results that meet clients’ needs and further ongoing business objectives by considering risks and opportunities.

Daniel’s advice frequently supports clients in resolving their matters preemptively through negotiations, mediation or arbitration. When litigation is necessary, he is involved in all aspects of a dispute — including developing strategies, conducting fact investigations and making legal arguments — to position clients for positive results.

Earlier in his career, Daniel practiced at Foley & Lardner in Chicago representing financial services institutions, real estate corporations and investment trusts in complex commercial litigation.

Read more about Daniel A. Dingerson of Davis+Gilbert LLPEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo