Defamation and libel online: removal, identifying the publisher and compensation

Service page: Defamation and libel on Facebook and WhatsApp: removal and claims.

What this guide covers: publication on the internet in general — websites, forums, reviews, search results and anonymous writers. A post on Facebook or a message in a WhatsApp group: Defamation on Facebook and WhatsApp.

A false post on Facebook, an invented review on Google, an anonymous comment on a forum, a fake video — all of these fall within one and the same legal framework. The practical question is not “does the law apply to the internet” but in what order to act: what to keep, whom to make demands of, and what you can ask the court for.

Defamation on the internet: why the law is the same as for any publication

The Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 was written in 1965, but its definition of publication is broad enough to cover any medium. Section 2(a) provides that publication is “whether orally or in writing or in print, including a drawing, figure, movement, sound and any other means” — wording that easily covers a post, a picture, a meme, a recording or a computer-generated video.

Note paragraph (2): it is enough that the writing could have reached a person other than the injured person. A message in a WhatsApp group, a comment on a closed profile or a review awaiting approval — all of them meet the condition. One screenshot showing another reader is enough to establish the element of publication. So all handling starts with preserving the evidence, and only after that with the choice between a removal demand and a proceeding — the two tracks of protection of reputation and defamation.

Libel on the internet: is it different from defamation?

No. “Libel on the internet” is not a separate legal category: it is a popular name for the same civil wrong. “Publication” for the purposes of the Law is by any means (section 2(a)), and the same remedies, defenses and compensation ceilings also apply to a publication online — the full details are gathered in the guide Defamation claims: amounts and compensation without proof of damage. What defamation is under the Law: Prohibition of Defamation Law.

Who is liable for defamation online: the writer, the person who shares, and the platform

The default is the liability of the person who wrote it. Section 7 of the Law defines the publication as a civil wrong to which the provisions of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] apply, including the rules on joint tortfeasors — so anyone who contributed to the publication can also be joined.

As for the platform, the picture is different from what people assume. Section 11 imposes special liability on a “mass medium”, but section 11(c) defines the term narrowly: a newspaper, and radio and television broadcasts provided to the public. A social media platform is not mentioned in the definition, and Israeli law has no general arrangement of intermediary liability. The practical result: a claim aimed mainly at the platform rather than at the writer starts from a weak position. Section 12 extends liability to the owner of a printing press, a seller and a distributor — and only if they knew or should have known that the publication contained defamation.

As for sharing: every further distribution may be a “publication” in itself under section 2, and alongside it there is the mitigation in section 19(1) — the court may take into account in the defendant’s favor that the words were a repetition of what had already been said and that they named the source they relied on. This is no immunity, but it makes a difference to the amount.

And what about the person who manages the group? The liability of a WhatsApp or Facebook group admin.

The publisher is an anonymous user — what you can really do

This is the point on which the most inaccurate things are written. The Supreme Court held in LCA 4447/07 Rami Mor v. Barak I.T.C. (2010) that, in the absence of a dedicated legislative arrangement, the court has no power to order an internet access provider or a website to disclose the identity of an anonymous user for the purpose of a civil claim, and it referred the matter to the legislature. The Prohibition of Defamation Law itself does not include such a power in any section.

What does work in practice: a request to the platform under its reporting procedures, which sometimes removes content that breaches its terms of use regardless of Israeli law; a complaint to the police when the publication amounts to an offense — for example the offense in section 6 of the Law (publication with intent to harm to two or more persons, which carries one year’s imprisonment), harassment, or an offense under the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981; and collecting evidence that points to the writer’s identity from the publications themselves. In a private criminal complaint (kovlana) under section 8 of the Law, the accused must be named — so it does not solve the identification problem either.

Removing defamation from the internet: what the court has the power to order

Section 9 of the Law empowers the court, in addition to any penalty and other remedy, to order the prohibition of distribution or the confiscation of copies of the publication, and the publication of a correction or retraction, or publication of the judgment — at the defendant’s expense, in the place, to the extent and in the manner the court sets. Section 10 adds the possibility of an interim order: if the defendant admitted that some of the statements are untrue, the court may order the publication of a correction even before the judgment.

Section 17 is relevant when the publication was made in a mass medium: if the injured person demanded in writing that a correction or retraction be published, and it was not published under a suitable headline, in the place, to the extent and with the prominence with which the defamation was published, and within a reasonable time — the editor and the person responsible will not have the good-faith defense. Section 25A adds a duty to update: if it was published that an investigation was opened or an indictment filed, and the case was closed or the person was acquitted — the updated decision must be published on written demand.

The right order in practice: documentation → a written removal demand with a clear deadline → a report to the platform at the same time → and only then a proceeding. A demand that was rejected is evidence that affects the amount; a demand that was met saves the whole proceeding. What the demand should include: A warning letter before a defamation claim. See also: Defamation on Facebook and WhatsApp.

Business reviews: where the line is

A negative review is not defamation. Section 15(6) expressly protects criticism in good faith of a work or of an act the injured person did in public, and section 15(4) protects expressing an opinion on conduct in connection with a matter of public interest. A business that opened its doors to the public is exposed to criticism of the service it gave.

The line runs between an opinion and a statement of fact. “I waited an hour and the dish arrived cold” — a description of an experience that can be verified. “I saw rodents in the kitchen” without any basis — a serious statement of fact that can be disproved, and this is where section 16(b)(2) comes in: if it was not true and the writer did not take reasonable measures to make sure whether it was true, there is a presumption of lack of good faith.

A business that was harmed has another consideration that is not legal: a proceeding publicizes the review. Sometimes a factual, documented reply under the review does more than any letter. The other side has a mirror consideration: someone who answers a review with a counter-accusation may become a defendant themselves. See also: A false Google review of your business. And for someone who received a warning letter because of a review or a post: the defenses and the first steps.

Evidence — what to keep, and before what

Publications get deleted, and accounts get closed. What was saved before removal is the whole case:

• A full screenshot that includes the address (URL), the date and the time, and not only the body of the text
• Saving the page as a PDF file, and copying the direct link to the publication and to the comments
• Documenting the extent of exposure — the number of comments, shares and likes — as evidence of the distribution, which is a consideration in awarding compensation
• The user name, the profile address and any identifying detail that appears in the publication itself
• Documenting the damage: customers who canceled, inquiries that stopped, correspondence that mentions the publication

And what not to do: do not delete your own posts in the same thread (this harms the evidence), do not reply with a counter-accusation, and do not send a threat that is not supported by a cause of action — the correspondence will be shown in court.

Removal from a search engine is not removal from the website

These are two separate actions, and many people confuse them. Removing a link from the search results leaves the publication where it is — it is simply harder to find; removal of the content itself requires the person who controls the page. Israel has no law that establishes a “right to be forgotten” against search engines, and a request to a search engine is examined under its own policy and not under a vested right. On the other hand, when the content includes personal details — an address, an ID number, medical or financial information — there is also an independent cause of action under the Protection of Privacy Law, with remedies of its own.

A practical conclusion: if the goal is for the publication to disappear, the request must go to the person who controls the page or to the court. If the goal is for it not to appear when people search for your name, you also need to add a request to the search engine — and to document both.

The first 48 hours: the order of steps

1. Document — screenshots with the address, date and time; save the page as a file; copy the direct link.
2. Do not respond in public before deciding on a line. A hasty response becomes evidence, and sometimes a cause of action for a counterclaim.
3. Report to the platform through its reporting mechanism, alongside the legal steps and not instead of them.
4. Send a written removal demand that sets out the exact sentences, why they are untrue, and a deadline for removal and for publishing a correction.
5. Collect the evidence of damage — cancellations, inquiries, correspondence — because these decide whether you sue for more than the statutory compensation.

And when the harm is not to your good name but to your privacy

Not every harmful publication is defamation. Publishing a picture in degrading circumstances, disclosing medical details or a home address, or using information about a person’s private affairs other than for the purpose for which it was given — these are causes of action under the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981, which also allows compensation without proof of damage (section 29A), under similar conditions. Sometimes the same publication gives rise to both causes of action, and it is worth examining both before filing.

Frequently asked questions

Is an online post or review considered defamation?

Yes, if the elements of the Law are met. Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 defines publication as something done orally, in writing or in print, including a drawing, figure, movement, sound and any other means — wording that covers a post, a picture, a video and a recording. Section 2(b) adds that it is enough that it was intended for a person other than the injured person and reached them or someone else, or that it was in writing that could have reached a person other than the injured person. In other words, one reader other than the injured person is enough, and a message in a closed group also falls within the definition. “Libel on the internet” is not a separate category in law but a popular name for the same civil wrong.

Can Facebook or Google be ordered to reveal who wrote it?

As a rule, no. The Supreme Court held, in LCA 4447/07 Rami Mor v. Barak I.T.C. (2010), that, in the absence of a dedicated legislative arrangement, there is no power to order the disclosure of an anonymous user’s identity for the purpose of a civil claim, and it referred the matter to the legislature. The Prohibition of Defamation Law does not give such a power. The practical routes are a request to the platform under its reporting procedures, a complaint to the police when the publication amounts to an offense — for example under section 6 of the Law, which concerns publication with intent to harm to two or more persons — and collecting identifying evidence from the publication itself.

How do you remove a harmful publication from the internet?

Section 9 of the Law empowers the court to order the prohibition of distribution or the confiscation of copies of the publication, and the publication of a correction or retraction or publication of the judgment at the defendant’s expense, in the place and in the manner it sets. Section 10 allows an interim order to publish a correction even before the judgment, when the defendant admitted that some of the statements are untrue. In a publication in a mass medium, section 17 takes away the good-faith defense from the editor and the person responsible if they did not publish a correction or retraction on written demand, with suitable prominence and within a reasonable time. Alongside the proceeding, you should use the platform’s reporting mechanisms, which operate under its terms of use.

Is a negative review of a business allowed, or is it defamation?

In most cases it is allowed. Section 15(6) of the Law protects good-faith criticism of a work or of an act the injured person did in public, and section 15(4) protects expressing an opinion in connection with a matter of public interest. The line runs between an opinion and a statement of fact: a description of an experience that can be verified is protected, while a serious factual accusation without any basis is not. Section 16(b)(2) sets a presumption of lack of good faith when what was published was not true and the publisher did not take reasonable measures before publishing to make sure whether it was true. A business should also consider a factual reply under the review — a legal proceeding increases the review’s exposure.

Is sharing a defamatory post itself defamation, and what about a like?

Sharing yes, a like no. In LCA 1239/19 Yoel Shaul v. Nidaily Communication Ltd., a Supreme Court judgment of 8 January 2020, it was held, in the opinion of Justice D. Barak-Erez, that sharing a defamatory publication on social media is a “publication” within the meaning of section 2 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law and may give rise to a cause of action against the person who shared it, while clicking “like” is not a “publication”, because an act that consists only of expressing a feeling about a statement goes beyond the balance in the Law and could have a chilling effect. The distinction was first made in CA (Tel Aviv District) 35757-10-16 and was upheld on appeal.

How do you file a defamation claim over an online publication, and by when?

The claim is filed under the Prohibition of Defamation Law against the person who wrote the publication, and sometimes also against people who shared it; there is no separate track for a publication online. An individual can sue for up to NIS 39,900 (as of 1 January 2026) in the Small Claims Court (section 60(a)(1) of the Courts Law), and a claim of no more than NIS 2,500,000 is heard in the Magistrates’ Court (section 51(a)(2) of the same Law). Without proof of damage, the court may award up to NIS 84,038.36, and up to double that amount if it is proved that the publication was made with intent to harm (sections 7A(b) and 7A(c), as of the update of 16 October 2026); this is a ceiling, and the actual amount depends on the circumstances. The claim generally becomes time-barred within seven years from the day of publication (sections 5(1) and 6 of the Prescription Law, 5718-1958 (חוק ההתיישנות, התשי״ח-1958)).