Laws regarding defamation were created long before the internet was invented, thus causing a plethora of problems for judges trying to apply decades-old law to modern-day dilemmas. It is dysfunctional, creating a grey area when it comes to social media and defamation. Defamation laws are a little outdated and have not had a chance to catch up with the times. The era of technology in which we live has created a world in which information can be published with the click of a button. Can defamation law really keep up with the vast, instantaneous entity that is social media? Nevertheless, as people increasingly rely on the internet as a source of information, we will see a positive correlation with the number of online libel lawsuits.

YouTuber Defamation

Though it might serve as a surprise, lawsuits have been filed against social media users. If a person publishes a false statement via social media that negatively affects the person named, this constitutes a libel case. What we need to remember, however, is that cases such as these are not unlike defamation cases of the past–the truly successful ones have been filed against information sources reaching many followers. For instance, in 2023, popular YouTuber Mr. Beast sued Virtual Dining Concepts (VDC), the company that ran his virtual restaurant chain and made false claims about his brand MrBeast Burger. It is unlikely that an untrue remark made online by an individual, not tied to a large corporation or organization, will make a big enough impact to be litigated as libelous. Hear the sigh of relief from all those social media users out there? I think so.

If you want to read up on an ongoing defamation case between Logan Paul and Youtuber Coffeezilla, check out this link.

Review Websites

On the other hand, some review website users of well-known sites like TripAdvisor, Angie’s List, and Yelp have experienced legal backlash from the businesses they wrote false reviews about. As long as a business can prove that false claims about their business have negatively impacted their financial gains or reputation, they may engage in a defamation lawsuit. Some believe this goes against the American right to free speech, while the burned businesses believe it to be libel. In fact, one defamation case describes how one dentist’s unhappy patient left a negative Yelp review, which led to the dentist owing Yelp $80,000 in fees to their attorneys, Yelp, and the patient.

What about social media providers?

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects social media providers from liability for any statements made by their users. It was originally created to combat pornographic and adult content being published freely on the internet but now applies to internet libel cases.

The Problem with Determining Damages

Because of the internet’s mammoth size, plaintiffs in defamation cases claim that libelous statements have the ability to reach unmeasurable numbers of people. They make it seem as if defamatory information reaches the whole world, and thus persuading juries to award inflated amounts of punitive damages. Yet most social media users’ reach is limited to their small community of followers. Even though a statement might be proven libelous, the fact that it has been published on the internet usually does not equate to its status as world-read media.

Conclusion

Because social media is not filtered like ‘reliable’ news sources, and users tend to rant grievances on the internet, it is very likely that untrue statements run rampant. However, other qualifications must be met to deem statements defamatory–the comments must reach followers and ultimately hurt a person or business monetarily or socially. The bottom line is that most people do not need to worry about making a defamatory statement via social media; we do have the right to free speech. But when it maliciously reaches enough people to hinder a person’s life or business, libel laws could apply.