California Defamation Law: A Guide to Libel and Slander Claims

If you've been harmed by false statements someone's made about you, then you might be tempted to file a defamation lawsuit. Before you proceed with a defamation lawsuit in California, it's crucial to understand how the state handles these kinds of cases. In this article, we'll cover defamation law basics, including how California defines libel and slander, how long you have to file a lawsuit, and what kind of compensation you might receive. We'll also discuss some of the reasons defamation lawsuits can be so hard to win.

What You Must Prove in a Defamation Lawsuit

A plaintiff suing for defamation typically must show that the defendant:

• made a false statement of fact about the plaintiff
• the statement was made to a third party (someone other than the plaintiff), and
• the statement harmed the plaintiff's reputation.

This statement can either be written (libel) or spoken (slander). Private figures bringing a defamation lawsuit in California must also show that the defendant was careless (negligent) about whether the statement was true or false. Public figures and officials—politicians, celebrities, heads of major corporations—must show more than negligence. Public figures must show that the defendant acted with "actual malice" by making a statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Learn more about the elements of a defamation claim.

(Cal. Civ. Code §44 (2025); Cal. Civ. Code §45 (2025); Cal. Civ. Code §46 (2025).)

Defenses to a Defamation Claim

California law allows defendants to raise several privileges and defenses in defamation cases. Most commonly, defendants argue that the allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true, the statements were an opinion, or that the person making the statement had the privilege to make it.

For example, the "fair report privilege" can shield people from liability for defamation if their statements were part of an official government report or proceeding. For instance, the fair report privilege is likely to apply to:

• testimony during a trial
• facts recorded in a final police report, or
• an analysis reported in a government document.

(Cal. Civ. Code § 47 (2025).)

California's Filing Deadline for Defamation Lawsuits

You have one year to file a defamation lawsuit in California. In most cases, the statute of limitations begins to run when the defendant first speaks or publishes an allegedly defamatory statement. However, in some cases the clock starts ticking later, or can be reset.

If you try to file a defamation lawsuit in California more than one year after the defamatory statements were first made, and no exception applies to extend the statute of limitations deadline, your lawsuit will be dismissed. You will not only lose your chance to get compensation for your losses in court, but you'll also lose leverage in out-of-court settlement negotiations. If the other side knows that the statute of limitations deadline is near or has already passed, the likelihood of resolving your case is slim to none.

If you have questions about how California's statute of limitations applies to your potential defamation lawsuit—especially if the one-year deadline has passed or is looming—it's time to discuss your situation with a knowledgeable California attorney.

(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(c) (2025).)

Extending the Deadline for a Defamation Lawsuit

Several situations can delay or pause the statute of limitations "clock" for defamation lawsuits. For example:

• If a defendant leaves California the one-year statute of limitations is suspended during the absence.
• If the potential plaintiff is under the age of 18, or lacks the legal capacity to make decisions when defamatory statements are made, the time of the disability is not included in the one-year statute of limitations period.

(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 340(c) (2025); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 351 (2025); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 352 (2025).)

The "Delayed Discovery" Rule

Sometimes a person can be defamed, and suffer harm as a result, without knowing about it. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s a California public school teacher was unable to find work because a principal she had worked with had put a defamatory letter in her confidential personnel file in 1960.

The teacher only found out about the letter in 1976, and when she sued the principal and the school district they argued that the one-year statute of limitations had already lapsed. But the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations for defamation lawsuits doesn't start to run until a person could reasonably have been expected to discover the existence of defamatory statements.

Importantly, this exception to the one-year statute of limitations doesn't provide more time to sue for defamation based on public statements (including statements published in books, in newspapers, and online). Courts assume that a person should be aware of public statements as soon as they're made.

(Manguso v. Oceanside Unified School District, 88 Cal.App.3d 725 (1979).)

Repetition of Defamatory Statements and the "Single Publication" Rule

When a defamatory statement is repeated to a new audience, it creates a new cause of action. So, for example, if someone makes defamatory statements to your colleagues, and then repeats the same defamatory statement on social media, then there could be two defamation claims, each with its own one-year filing deadline. (Similarly, if someone hears a defamatory statement and repeats it, they could be liable for defamation even though they didn't make up the false statement themselves.)

However, California follows the "single publication" rule when it comes to certain statements. Under this rule, if a defamatory statement is published and distributed to the public (for example, in a book or newspaper, or on a website), then the defamation occurs only once--at the time of distribution. The one-year statute of limitations starts to run on the date of that initial distribution.

The limit of one defamation claim applies no matter how many copies of a publication are distributed, and no matter when those copies are read by members of the public. This rule prevents a situation where new lawsuits could be filed every time a new reader comes across one of the original copies of the publication.

But the single publication rule doesn't allow someone to endlessly repeat the same defamatory statement without additional consequences. For example, even under the single publication rule a new claim could arise if a defamatory statement:

• is repeated in a later issue of a publication (for example, the statement appears in a magazine's July issue, and again in its August issue)
• is reprinted in a new edition of a book (for example, a paperback version published after a hardback version), or
• is published on a webpage which is substantively reposted and republished without removing the defamatory content.

In situations like these, the statute of limitations for a new claim is one year from the date of the new publication.

Also, keep in mind that limiting the number of defamation claims doesn't necessarily limit a plaintiff's potential compensation. A single claim--for example, against a widely read news website that publishes a defamatory article read by millions--could be worth much more than several smaller claims in which one person repeats a defamatory statement several times, but only to a small number of people.

(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 3425-3 (2025); Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal. 4th 1230 (2003); Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012).)

Where Should I File a Defamation Lawsuit?

Before you file your lawsuit, you'll need to figure out which court has the authority to consider it.

If you bring a defamation claim against someone who lives in California, or a company or organization that does business in California, then a California superior court will have the authority to hear and decide your case.

In addition, California courts can sometimes hear defamation cases brought against people who live outside the state. In 1984, the Supreme Court considered a case in which an actress and singer sued over a defamatory article in the National Enquirer. The Court ruled that the case could be heard in California, even though the defendants lived and worked out of state. Venue was proper in California because the defendants' "intentional conduct in Florida [was] calculated to cause injury to [the plaintiff] in California."

In general, though, you'll have to file your lawsuit in the county where the person or entity you are suing lives or does business.

(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 395 (2025); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984); Johnson v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 232 Cal.App.2d 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965).).)

How Much Is a Typical Defamation Case Worth in California?

No two defamation cases are the same, so it's impossible to say how much a typical defamation case is worth.

Some California plaintiffs receive millions of dollars in damages. For example, in 2021, a Glenn County jury awarded nearly $40 million to Dalas Gundersen, a former Edward Jones broker. Gundersen was defamed by his former colleagues at Edward Jones, who posted fake sex ads on Craigslist with Gundersen's business phone number and physical description.

But most defamation cases don't end in multimillion-dollar awards. Some plaintiffs lose their cases and get nothing. Others win and get only nominal damages as low as $1. Still others end up with a satisfying court award or settlement. The value of each lawsuit depends on the individual facts and circumstances of the case.

Types of Damages

In California, there are three main types of damages in a defamation case:

• General damages. These cover losses that can't be easily boiled down to a dollar amount, like harm to your standing in the community and the pain and suffering caused by the defamatory statements. Unless a false statement is defamation per se (which we'll discuss below), the plaintiff must provide evidence of the harm they've suffered in order to collect general damages.
• Special damages. These cover economic losses, like lost income and diminished earning capacity.
• Punitive damages. When a defendant's conduct is particularly blameworthy--for example, if they lied out of malice, or as part of a scheme to commit fraud--the plaintiff can seek punitive damages. These damages are intended to punish the defendant and deter others from behaving the same way in the future.

Importantly, if someone thinks they've been defamed in a newspaper, a magazine, or a radio or television broadcast, the damages they can collect depend on whether they demand a correction. If a demand is made, and the defendant doesn't issue the correction, then a plaintiff is entitled to full damages. But if the defendant doesn't make the request, then the only damages they can collect are special damages (that is, the specific economic losses they can prove).

(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 48a (2025)

Defamation Per Se

California law uses a concept called "defamation per se." Under this rule, some false statements are treated as obviously harmful--meaning that a defendant doesn't have to specifically show how they were hurt in order to collect damages. Instead, it's presumed that the person has suffered harm to their reputation, embarrassment, or similar harm, and is therefore entitled to compensation.

Examples of defamation per se include falsely stating that the plaintiff:

• committed a crime
• has a stigmatized disease
• lacks professional skills or ethics, or
• engaged in improper sexual conduct.

(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 45a (2025); California Civil Jury Instruction No. 1704 (2025)

Are Defamation Cases Hard to Win?

Defamation lawsuits can be extremely difficult to win.

People accused of defamation often defend themselves by claiming that the statements were true, or that they were just stating an opinion and not a fact. Slander lawsuits tend to be harder to prove than libel because you have to track down witnesses who will testify about what they heard someone say about you rather than having the statement in writing.

Defamation cases also involve constitutional questions about how to balance a person's right to defend their reputation against another person's First Amendment right to free speech. In California, defendants can raise these issues as soon as a lawsuit is filed against them. California's "anti-SLAPP" law is intended to make sure that plaintiffs can't use ill-founded defamation lawsuits as a way to prevent people from speaking out about issues of public interest ("SLAPP" stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation").

The state's anti-SLAPP law allows defendants to get baseless lawsuits dismissed quickly. If a defamation case is thrown out because of an anti-SLAPP motion, then the plaintiff is responsible for the defendant's attorney's fees and other legal costs.

Because defamation cases so often raise these kinds of difficult factual and legal questions, they can be complex and time-consuming. Most people don't have the money to fund a lengthy lawsuit, and some lawyers might not be willing to take defamation cases on a contingency fee basis because of the risks involved.

Next Steps for Your Defamation Claim

As we've seen, defamation is a complicated area of law. Before you file a defamation lawsuit, you'll probably benefit from speaking with an attorney. A lawyer with experience handling libel and slander cases can explain your options and help you decide if a lawsuit makes sense. A good lawyer can also help you understand how a defamation case will probably unfold, and represent your interests as you seek to restore your reputation.