Defamation Lawyer in Israel
A publication that damages a good name or a business raises two practical questions: is there a cause of action, and what is the right first step. This page explains how a defamation matter is handled from both sides, what determines its value, and what is worth doing before a claim is ever filed.
When people turn to a defamation lawyer
Most enquiries in this field arrive after the publication has already happened, at the point where the person affected is trying to decide whether it is worth pursuing at all. Three situations recur:
- Harm to a business. A review, rating or post attributing conduct to a business that did not occur. Section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965, expressly covers harm to a person's office, business, occupation or profession, and the definition of "person" in that section applies to a corporation as well.
- Personal harm online. A post, comment or video that keeps surfacing in search results long after the matter itself has been forgotten.
- Being sued, or receiving a demand letter. Not everyone who published criticism committed a wrong, and a full defence is often available.
The full legal framework - the four tests, the publication element, the defences and the damages - is set out in the guide to defamation claims. This page deals with the practical question: what to do about it.
Both sides of the dispute
The firm represents both sides in defamation matters, and each side calls for a different working logic.
Acting for the person affected
The work begins with documentation: exactly what was published, when, where, and who was exposed to it. In parallel, the question is whether the publication meets one of the four tests in section 1, and whether the publication element is satisfied. In the civil cause of action it is enough that the matter reached one person other than the person affected, under section 7 of the Law.
Acting for the publisher or defendant
Here the examination runs the other way: whether the defence of truth in publication under section 14 applies, or one of the twelve good-faith circumstances listed in section 15. Section 16 adds evidentiary presumptions in both directions, so the checking done before publishing has a direct effect on the strength of the defence.
A good name is better than precious ointment
Ecclesiastes 7:1 (קהלת ז׳, א׳)
Defamation against a business: what is different
Section 1(3) of the Law refers expressly to a publication liable to harm a person "in his office, whether a public office or otherwise, in his business, his occupation or his profession", and the definition at the end of that section provides that "person" means an individual or a corporation. A company can therefore be the injured party in its own right, not only its owners.
Three situations recur in business matters:
- Online reviews attributing conduct that did not take place. The dispute here turns on the defence of truth in publication under section 14, so the first question is what exactly was alleged and what can be proved.
- Statements by a competitor. An opinion about the quality of a service may fall within one of the good-faith circumstances in section 15; a false factual assertion does not.
- A former employee. A publication about employment terms or about the employer's conduct is examined with the same tools, and often carries a separate contractual question alongside it.
The distinction between a factual assertion and an expression of opinion is usually the axis of the case, and it is decided by the actual wording and by the context in which the publication is read.
The first step, before a claim is filed
Section 17 of the Law provides that a defendant who is a media outlet, or responsible for one, will not enjoy the good-faith defence if asked to publish a correction or denial and failed to do so in the manner in which the defamation was published and with a similar degree of prominence.
A well drafted demand letter is therefore not merely an attempt to avoid proceedings. It shifts the balance within the case itself: a refusal to correct weakens the publisher's position, while a correction or apology may be taken into account in the publisher's favour under section 19.
In practice, a significant share of these matters closes at this stage, with no statement of claim and no courtroom.
What determines the value of a case
The question of amount is usually asked first, and the answer runs along two separate tracks.
The first track is compensation without proof of damage. Section 7A(b) sets a ceiling of NIS 50,000, and section 7A(c) allows up to double that amount where the publication is shown to have been made with intent to harm. Section 7A(e) provides that these amounts are updated on the 16th of every month in line with the Consumer Price Index, with September 1998 as the base index, so the ceiling in practice is higher than the figure stated in the Law. Any figure quoted without that linkage is inaccurate.
The second track is proven damage. A claimant who can show lost income, a cancelled engagement or other business loss is not bound by the ceiling, but must prove both the loss and its causal link to the publication.
Beyond money, there are matters in which the meaningful remedy is not financial at all. Section 9 allows the court to order the publication of a correction or denial and to prohibit distribution of copies, and section 25A adds a duty to update where a publication concerned proceedings that ended in closure of the file or in acquittal.
Interview: defamation claims in football
In this radio interview, Adv. Erez Sapir of Mor & Co. explains how statements made in the heat of competition are assessed, where the line runs between sporting criticism and harm to reputation, and what weight is given to the context in which the words were said. The interview is in Hebrew.
Four mistakes that recur
- Deleting the publication without documenting it. The person affected asks for removal, the post disappears, and the evidence goes with it. A screenshot showing the address, the date and the name of the publisher is needed before any approach is made.
- Replying publicly and immediately. A sharp reply under the post itself sometimes creates a counter-claim, and widens the exposure of the original publication instead of narrowing it.
- Quoting the ceiling without the index linkage. Many arrive with a figure found online, unaware that section 7A(e) links it to the Consumer Price Index.
- Waiting. As time passes, comments are deleted, profiles are closed, and the exposure that has already occurred becomes harder to prove.
How a matter of this kind is handled
Work opens with a factual review rather than a legal assessment: what exactly was published, through which medium, when, and how wide the exposure was. Only once that picture is clear is the legal question examined, including the defences likely to be available to the other side.
The route is then chosen. Sometimes it is a demand for correction or removal, sometimes full proceedings, and sometimes the conclusion is that there is no case worth running. That is said at the outset, not after a year of litigation.
The firm also acts for the publishing side, including businesses that received demand letters over a review they published or that appeared on their page.
In summary
A defamation claim is assessed against the four tests in section 1 of the Law, not against the intensity of the feeling involved. The publication element is satisfied once the matter has reached one person other than the person affected, and against that stand the defence of truth in publication and the good-faith defence with its twelve circumstances. Compensation without proof of damage is subject to the ceiling in section 7A, which is index linked, and alongside it runs a separate track of proven loss.
The complexity here is not in whether a publication is hurtful, but in choosing the right route: how the demand for correction is drafted, how the publication is documented in admissible form, a realistic assessment of the defences available to the other side, and the decision whether the remedy sought is money or removal and correction. That combination calls for familiarity with the Law and with the case law interpreting it, and for professional legal representation by a lawyer practising in the field.
If something has been published that harms your good name or your business, or if you have received a demand letter over a publication of your own, contact us and we will review the facts and the options open to you together.
Frequently asked
Can a negative Google review be actionable?
What should be done first, before instructing a lawyer?
I received a demand letter over a post. What does it mean?
How long does a case like this take?
Can removal be sought without damages?
How much can be awarded without proving damage?
All pages in this practice
Defamation · Road accidents · Medical negligence
Defamation Claims: The GuideDefamationRoad Accident Compensation LawMaking a Road Accident ClaimFatal Road AccidentsCompensation from KarnitLiability and Burden of ProofMedical Malpractice ClaimsThe Medical OpinionInformed ConsentPrinciples of liability · Work accidents
Joint TortfeasorsAbsolute LiabilityCompensation for a Work AccidentWork disability claimOccupational diseaseMicrotrauma injuryCommuting the disability pensionHas something been published that harms your name?
Tell us what was published, where and when, and who saw it. That is usually enough to say whether there is a cause of action, what the first step should be, and which defences the other side is likely to raise.