Defamation: libel vs. slander, and what a claim has to prove

Defamation is a false statement of fact about you that someone shared with another person and that harmed your reputation. Cornell’s Wex encyclopedia, an educational secondary source, lists four general elements: a false statement purporting to be fact, publication to a third party, the required level of fault by the defendant, and reputational harm or other damage the law recognizes (Wex: defamation). Libel and slander are the two forms the claim takes.

The details come from state law, limited by the First Amendment. This guide uses California as its worked example because its official civil jury instructions spell each element out.

What a defamation claim has to prove

California’s official jury instructions show how the elements look in practice. Under CACI Nos. 1700 through 1705, a plaintiff generally has to prove that the defendant made the statement to someone other than the plaintiff, that the listener or reader reasonably understood it was about the plaintiff, and that the statement was false (CACI 2026 edition). Depending on who the plaintiff is, the instructions then add a fault requirement, covered below.

Harm is the last piece. The California instructions let a plaintiff recover for harm to property, business or occupation, for expenses caused by the statements, for harm to reputation, and for shame, mortification or hurt feelings. In some situations, CACI No. 1700 tells jurors the law assumes reputational harm even without proof of actual damages, and that they must award at least a nominal sum. For how courts sort these losses, see our guide to economic and non-economic damages.

Libel vs. slander

Wex describes libel as written or otherwise recorded statements and slander as spoken statements. California puts the line in its Civil Code. Section 45 defines libel as a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy or another fixed representation to the eye (Cal. Civ. Code § 45). Section 46 defines slander as a false and unprivileged publication that is orally uttered, and it also reaches communications by radio or other mechanical means (Cal. Civ. Code § 46).

The difference can matter for proving harm. California’s section 46 lists specific kinds of slander, such as falsely charging someone with a crime or saying something that tends to injure them in their trade or profession, and ends with a catch-all for statements that cause actual damage. California’s instructions separate claims into “per se” statements, which are defamatory on their face, and “per quod” statements, which are harmful only because of outside facts the listener knows. In a per quod claim, CACI No. 1701 requires proof of actual harm to property, business, profession or occupation.

Fact vs. opinion, and truth as a defense

Only statements of fact can be defamatory. California’s CACI No. 1707 explains: “A statement of fact is one that can be proved to be true or false.” The same instruction warns that a statement framed as an opinion can still support a claim if it implies that a false fact is true, judged by how the average reader or listener would take the language in context. Wex notes the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a rule that every opinion is automatically protected.

Truth defeats the claim. Wex calls truth generally a complete defense, because the plaintiff cannot prove falsity. In California, CACI No. 1720 says the defendant does not have to prove a statement true in every detail, only substantially true. Its directions say that in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving falsity instead.

Public figures and actual malice

The First Amendment sets a floor for every state. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public official cannot recover for a defamatory falsehood about official conduct without proving “actual malice,” meaning the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). Wex reports that the same standard applies to public figures.

California’s instructions build this in. CACI No. 1700, for public officers, public figures and limited public figures, requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew the statement was false or had serious doubts about its truth.

Private figures and negligence

Private people get more room. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “so long as they do not impose liability without fault,” states may set their own standard of liability for defamation of a private individual (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.). The Court also said states may not allow presumed or punitive damages in those cases unless the plaintiff shows knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Wex notes that many states use a negligence standard for private plaintiffs. California does: under CACI Nos. 1702 and 1704, a private-figure plaintiff must prove the defendant failed to use reasonable care to determine whether the statement was true or false.

Privileges that block a claim

Some statements are protected even if false. Wex describes an absolute privilege for statements in judicial and legislative proceedings, and a qualified privilege for communications made where the speaker and listener share a duty or interest, which the plaintiff can overcome by showing malice.

California’s version of the qualified privilege appears in Civil Code section 47(c). Under CACI No. 1723, a plaintiff facing that privilege cannot recover, even for a false statement, unless the plaintiff proves the defendant acted with hatred or ill will, or had no reasonable grounds for believing the statement was true. The CACI directions list a separate litigation privilege under section 47(b) and a fair reporting privilege under section 47(d).

Anti-SLAPP motions and short deadlines

Many states let a defendant ask for early dismissal of a lawsuit aimed at speech. A 2026 topic summary from Wyoming’s Legislative Service Office reports that, as of April 2026, 39 states, plus Guam and the District of Columbia, had enacted anti-SLAPP laws, and that such laws often allow quick dismissal, pause discovery, and award fees to a winning defendant (Wyoming LSO topic summary).

California’s statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. A claim arising from protected speech or petitioning in connection with a public issue is subject to a special motion to strike unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). A defendant who wins the motion is generally entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, and the motion may be filed within 60 days of service of the complaint, or later with the court’s permission.

Timing matters on the plaintiff’s side too. In California, Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c) sets a one-year period for libel and slander (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340). CACI No. 1722 measures it from when the statement was first communicated to someone else, and for books, newspapers and similar publications, from first general distribution. Other states set their own periods; our guide to statutes of limitations for civil claims explains how deadlines work generally.

A statement that falls short of defamation may still raise other claims. If the conduct was outrageous and aimed at causing distress, see our guide to intentional infliction of emotional distress.

• Save the exact words. Screenshot or copy the statement with the date, platform and URL.
• List who saw or heard it. Publication to a third party is part of the claim.
• Separate fact from opinion. Mark which parts could be proved true or false.
• Gather proof of falsity and harm. Keep records that contradict the statement and any lost business or expenses.
• Check the deadline. In California the period for libel and slander is one year, and other states set their own.

This guide explains general legal concepts and is legal information, not legal advice. Defamation rules, privileges, anti-SLAPP procedures and deadlines differ by state and depend on the facts; consult a lawyer licensed in the relevant jurisdiction about a specific situation.