Defamation on Facebook and in WhatsApp groups: evidence, removal and claims

A private message sent only to you. The Law treats defamation as a “publication” when it was intended for a person other than the injured party and reached them, or when it was in writing and the writing could, in the circumstances, have reached a person other than the injured party (section 2(b) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law). The civil wrong requires publication “to one or more persons other than the injured party” (section 7). A message sent only to you that did not reach anyone else does not meet the first alternative; the question is whether, in the circumstances, it could have reached others. Repeated offensive messages may call for other tools: Cyberbullying: a protection order and a claim for compensation.

Forwarding a message to a group or to another person. A person who forwards an offensive message brings it to new recipients, and this may be a “publication” in itself (section 2(b)(1)). The Supreme Court held that sharing a defamatory post on social media is a “publication” (LCA 1239/19 Shaul v. Nidaily Communication Ltd., 8 January 2020). A person who repeated statements and named the source they relied on may benefit from a reduction in compensation (section 19(1)), but not from an exemption.

A family group. When the author is a “family member” within the meaning of the law, for example a spouse, a parent, a child, a brother or a sister, and the cause of action is a dispute within the family, the claim is heard in the Family Court (sections 1(2) and 3(a) of the Family Court Law, 5755-1995 (חוק בית המשפט לענייני משפחה, התשנ״ה-1995)). Who counts as a family member, and what to do when the author is an uncle or a cousin: Filing a defamation claim: statement of claim, court and small claims.

A work group. A defamation claim between an employee and an employer, or an officer of the employer, in connection with the employment relationship is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Labor Court (section 24(a)(1d) of the Labor Court Law), and you choose the court according to Which Labor Court do you file in?. A claim against a co-worker who is not a supervisor and not an officer does not fall under this section.

The Prohibition of Defamation Law does not include a special provision on group admins. The special liability in the Law applies to the person who brings the matter to a medium of communication, to its editor and to the person responsible for it, where a medium of communication is a newspaper or radio and television broadcasts (section 11), and to a printer and a distributor of printed matter (section 12). So far, the question has been decided by courts of first instance, and we did not find a binding ruling of the Supreme Court on it (checked on 27 October 2026).

This section deals with someone who runs a group as a private person. For the owner of a website, a forum or a business platform: Website owner liability for user content in Israel.

According to the reports, in all three cases it was not running the group as such that created liability, but knowledge of the posts and the ability to act, followed by a failure to act. The description is based on reports and not on the text of the judgments. These are judgments of courts of first instance, they do not bind other courts, and the latest one is under appeal.

What to do in practice. If you were harmed by messages in a group: contact the group admins in writing, quote the messages, ask them to remove the messages and to prevent more, and keep a copy of your request. If you run a group and received such a request: check it quickly, and document what you did and when.

• A harmful publication: something that may humiliate a person in the eyes of others, hold them in contempt or harm them in their position or business (section 1).
• Identification: readers must understand that it refers to you, even if your name was not written.
• Publication to another person: one reader other than the injured party is enough (section 2(b)).

The defendant, on the other hand, has defenses. Truth of the publication is a defense only if the publication also involved a public interest (section 14). Section 15 protects a publication made in good faith in certain situations, for example expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest (section 15(4)), or criticism of an act done in public (section 15(6)). If the defendant proved that they made the publication in one of the circumstances in section 15, and that it did not go beyond what was reasonable in those circumstances, they are presumed to have made it in good faith (section 16(a)). The line runs between an opinion and a statement of fact: “the service was bad” is an opinion; “they stole from me” is a statement of fact. And if the matter was not true and the publisher did not take reasonable steps to check whether it was true, there is a presumption that they did not act in good faith (section 16(b)).

• A screenshot of the text only. The screenshot must include the address (URL), the date and the time, not only the body of the text.
• Deleting your own posts in the same thread. This harms the evidence.
• Replying with a counter-accusation, or a threat with no cause of action behind it. The correspondence will be shown in court, and your reply is also a “publication” (section 2).
• Not documenting the extent of exposure. The number of comments, shares and likes records how widely the publication was distributed.

There are two routes, and you use them at the same time. The first is the platform's reporting mechanism, which works according to its terms of use and not according to Israeli law. The second is the court: section 9 of the Law empowers it to order that the publication not be distributed, and that a correction, a retraction or the judgment be published at the defendant's expense. Section 10 allows an interim order to publish a correction even before the judgment, when the defendant admitted that some of the statements are not true.

The platform itself is not a “medium of communication” under the definition in section 11(c) of the Law, which refers to a newspaper and to radio and television broadcasts. So the claim is usually directed at the person who wrote and at the person who shared. When the author is an anonymous user, the Supreme Court held in LCA 4447/07 Rami Mor v. Barak I.T.C. (2010), that without an arrangement in legislation there is no power to order a provider to reveal their identity for the purpose of a civil claim. When the publication amounts to an offense (for example, a publication to two or more people with intent to harm (section 6 of the Law), harassment or threats), you can complain to the police, and in ongoing harassment you can ask for an order under the Prevention of Threatening Harassment Law, 5762-2001.

Section 7A(b) of the Law allows the court to award compensation without proof of damage, up to a ceiling set in the Law and linked to the index (CPI) (section 7A(e)); when it was proved that the publication was made with intent to harm, up to double that amount (section 7A(c)). This is a ceiling, not a fixed amount: the court awards according to the circumstances of the case. Compensation without proof of damage will not be awarded more than once for the same defamation (section 7A(d)). When actual damage is proved, such as the loss of customers, there is no ceiling.

An apology, a correction or a retraction by the publisher are circumstances the court may take into account in the defendant's favor (section 19). The current amounts and the case law are set out in the guide Defamation claim: amounts and compensation without proof of damage.

Do not ignore it, and do not rush to reply. First, save a copy of what was published, including the date and the comments, before any change. Then check with a lawyer whether you have a defense: truth and public interest (section 14), or good faith in one of the situations in section 15.

Sometimes the right step is to remove the post and publish a correction or an apology. Deleting does not cancel the cause of action, which arose as soon as it was published, but section 19(4) allows the court to take into account, in the defendant's favor, an apology, a correction or a retraction, when it was published in the place, to the extent and in the way that the defamation was published, and was not qualified. The office also represents defendants in defamation claims. The defenses in sections 13–16 and the first steps are set out in the guide Sued for defamation? The warning letter, the defenses and the first steps.

For the full explanation of online defamation, see: The guide to online defamation