• Law Office Sung

Social Media and Defamation (ENG)

(Disclaimer that this article is based on the defamation laws of the United States.)


As Social Media, Social Networking Services (SNS), and online customer review services rapidly increase, the risk of inappropriate content, such as false reviews, abusive language, or insulting comments is increasing. Except for blocking obvious inappropriate content such as pornography, it is virtually impossible for most Internet service providers (ISPs) and social media platforms to verify, self-censor, and regulate the vast amount of content posted by millions or tens of millions of users a day. They only regulate and delete the reported content ex post facto. Even for the reported content, it is difficult to make a clear judgment on whether the content is insulting or defamatory, and ISPs based in foreign countries often fail to actively respond to requests to delete posts.


So, if someone posts false information about me and my family, or my business, what remedy should I seek?


Victims sometimes want to hold ISPs or Social Media Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter accountable for the damage, in addition to the perpetrators who actually created and uploaded the defamatory contents. Victims argue that despite several requests for the content to be deleted, ignoring or delaying requests cause more damage by allowing the widespread of the contents for a long time. Another reason for holding ISPs or Social Media Platforms accountable is because they can recover the damages faster, especially in cases where the perpetrator is, anonymous or under fake names making it difficult to identify the perpetrator, or located in a foreign county or insolvent even when being identified. Sometimes complaining against ISPs or Social Media Platforms with sufficient financial resources may be a lot faster way to recover the damages.


However, in the United States, under Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996, businesses such as ISPs and Social Media Platforms are virtually immune from libel lawsuits. In other words, according to the Article 230, providers or users of interactive computer services are not treated as publishers or speaker of information provided by the uploader, and therefore most federal and state courts in the United States generally find the website or service provider of the platform free from liability, as long as the source of the content is a third party. As a result, only filing a lawsuit against the uploader or corporation that actually uploaded the content online can be seen as a realistic civil remedy. ​

How is defamation defined in the United States’ law then? In general, it is defined as the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation. Posting articles or photos online can be seen by at least one person, meeting the publication requirement. However, it is necessary to consider the statements by dividing them into statements of fact, opinions, and modifications of photos or videos. (If the statement is an objectively obvious falsehood, it is self-evident that it will be recognized as defamation and therefore do not mention it separately.)


First, if online statements indicate objective facts(=true), then it is hard to prevail. On the other hand, in South Korea, there is still controversy over the pros and cons of the abolition of “defamation by publicly alleging facts (사실적시 명예훼손죄).” For instance, we can assume a case that an American user (defendant) leaves a hypercriticism of foods provided by a restaurant (plaintiff) on Google, Yelp, or Social Media such as Facebook or Instagram. If the review is about a harmful substance has been found in the food, to prevail, the plaintiff must prove that no harmful substance has been found and the review has been falsely written. Therefore, the question of whether statements are true or false is the battle of who can present more convincing evidence in court.


Second, if online statements indicate the publisher's personal opinion, then it is also hard to prevail. In particular, the United States heavily values freedom of speech, and individual opinions are protected and privileged by law. However, this is not absolute, and an opinion that may be viewed as a statement of fact by a reasonable person will be deemed a statement of fact. If so, it must be judged, as previously explained, whether the statement is true or false. Therefore, even if the defendants counterargue that they only stated their opinion that they think a harmful substance is often found in the plaintiff's food, the court may interpret it as a statement of fact and may admit it as defamation, if it is not based on facts.


Finally, if online statements are posted by modifying photos or videos to insult or ridicule individuals or businesses, they are likely to be recognized as defamation. In particular, as part of viral marketing or witch-hunting, there are cases where photos or videos are modified to synthesize insulting or defamatory information and posted on social media. In such a case, if the revised content has no factual basis or is exaggerated than the facts, it is more likely that those posts will be recognized as defamation. ​

It should be remembered that online defamation is a serious tort and can entail great liability. Before posting online, we recommend that you reconsider the following:


1. Never write in anger. The writing, written in anger, is highly likely to include libelous statements about someone. No matter how upset you are, think over it and wait to write and post until at least the next day.

2. Be sure to check the facts before posting. Double-checking facts cannot be overemphasized enough. Everything you experience may not be all true. Consider if you misunderstood or misread.

3. Double check, triple check hashtags. You may want to put hashtags such as #Fraud or #Crook as a joke, but someone may not take it as a joke.

4. Do not modify or revise photos or videos of others. Even if the revised content is true or based on opinions, it is more likely to be considered as defamation.


On the other hand, it is important for victims of defamation to report damages immediately to ISPs and Social Media Platforms Help Centers, and to preserve evidence, including screenshots of the contents. And we recommend you consult a lawyer on how to respond as soon as possible.

Recent Posts

See All

스타트업의 지분 배분 (Stock Allocation)

2021. 5. 10. 둘 이상의 창업자들이 함께 설립한 기업의 경우 거의 항상 지분을 어떻게 배분할 것이냐에 대한 이슈가 생긴다. 물론 최초의 창업시점부터 함께한 창업자들이라면 1/n으로 지분을 나누면 깔끔하지 않냐고 반문할 수 있겠지만 각자의 역할과 기여도를 고려하지 않고 단순히 최초에 같이 시작했다는 이유만으로 전부 동일한 지분을 나눠가지는 것은 장

미국 저작권 등록하기 (Registering a Copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office)

2021. 4. 26. 이전의 AI와 IP (저작권) 관련한 글에서 저작권 등록은 필수는 아니지만 다음과 같은 장점들이 있음을 소개한 바 있다. 첫째, 저작물 출판 후 3개월 이내 또는 저작권 침해 행위에 앞서 저작권을 등록할 경우, 저작권자가 소송에서 법정 손해와 변호사 비용도 청구할 수 있다. 반면에 출판 후 3개월 이내에 등록하지 않았거나 실제 저작권

미국에서 사업체 인수하기 (Steps to buying a business in the U.S.)

2021. 4. 20. 요근래 미국에서 창업을 생각하시는 분들의 문의가 굉장히 많아졌다. 동시에 완전한 신규 창업이 아닌 기존의 사업체를 인수하는 방식으로 사업을 시작하시려는 분들의 문의도 늘어나고 있는 추세이다. 흔히들 사업체의 인수라고 하면 구글이 LOOKER를 3조원에 샀네, 삼성이 50조원 규모로 NXP를 인수하네 마네와 같이 대규모의 M&A 딜