Cal. Civ. Code §§ 44–48a; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340(c); CACI 1700 series
Defamation in California: one year, and an anti-SLAPP motion waiting
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Defamation is the claim people most want to bring and most often should not.
The deadline is one year — CCP § 340(c) — the shortest of any California tort, and it runs from publication rather than from discovery.
And the defendant has a weapon most defendants do not. If the statement concerned a public issue, CCP § 425.16 lets them move to strike the complaint, freeze all discovery before you take a single deposition, and collect their attorney's fees from you if they win. The fee award is mandatory.
A defamation claim that is merely arguable is a claim that can cost the plaintiff more than the defamation did.
What the claim is
Someone published a false statement of fact about you, to a third person, without privilege, and it damaged your reputation.
Libel is written or visual — Civil Code § 45. Slander is spoken — § 46. The distinction still matters, because the categories that are actionable without proof of damage differ between them.
Where the right comes from
Civil Code §§ 44 through 48a. Section 44 defines defamation as libel or slander. Section 45 defines libel. Section 46 defines slander and lists the four categories actionable per se. Section 47 supplies the privileges. Section 48a contains the retraction demand.
Layered on top is constitutional law, which supplies the fault requirements and in many cases decides the case.
What a plaintiff has to prove — the CACI 1700 series
- The defendant made a statement to a person other than the plaintiff.
- The person reasonably understood the statement was about the plaintiff.
- The statement was reasonably understood to have a defamatory meaning.
- The statement was false.
- The defendant failed to use reasonable care to determine its truth — or acted with actual malice, where the plaintiff is a public figure or the matter is of public concern.
- The plaintiff was harmed.
Fact, not opinion — and it is not settled by adding "in my opinion"
Only a statement of fact is actionable. Pure opinion is protected. But the test is not whether the speaker labelled it an opinion; it is whether the statement, in context, implies a provably false assertion of fact. "In my opinion, he embezzles from the till" is actionable. Prefacing a factual accusation with a disclaimer does not convert it into opinion.
The fault standard depends on who you are
A public official or public figure must prove actual malice — that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth — by clear and convincing evidence. That standard defeats most such claims.
A private figure generally need prove only negligence as to truth, though actual malice is required to recover presumed or punitive damages on a matter of public concern.
Per se and per quod
Defamation per se requires no proof of damage — the statement is actionable on its face. For slander, § 46 lists the categories: imputing a crime, a loathsome disease, unfitness or misconduct in one's office, profession, or trade, or impotence or unchastity.
Defamation per quod requires the plaintiff to plead and prove special damages — actual pecuniary loss — because the defamatory meaning depends on facts outside the statement itself.
How long you have to file
One year, under CCP § 340(c).
The single-publication rule governs accrual. An entire edition of a newspaper, a broadcast, or a web page is one publication giving rise to one cause of action, and the clock starts when it is first made generally available. Every subsequent view does not restart it.
For online material, this is the rule that matters most. A defamatory post published two years ago is time-barred, however many people read it yesterday.
Republication starts a new clock, but the bar is higher than it sounds: a modification aimed at a new audience republishes; a technical migration, a change elsewhere on the site, or continued availability does not.
There is no general discovery rule. The one-year period runs from publication whether or not you knew about it, subject to narrow exceptions where the publication was hidden from the plaintiff.
What has to happen before you file — the retraction demand
Civil Code § 48a, and its scope is narrower than most summaries suggest.
It applies to a libel in a "daily or weekly news publication," or a slander by radio broadcast. It does not apply to defamation generally. A defamatory statement by a neighbour, a former employer, or an individual on social media is outside it.
Where it applies: the plaintiff must serve a written demand for correction within 20 days of learning of the publication, specifying the statements claimed to be libellous and demanding they be corrected.
The consequence of not demanding is not dismissal. The plaintiff recovers only special damages — actual, provable pecuniary loss. General damages for loss of reputation and emotional distress, and punitive damages, are lost.
Character: a substantive condition on the scope of recovery, not a gate on the action. Nothing is jurisdictional and nothing is forfeited by the defendant's failure to raise it early; the claim proceeds, diminished.
AB 998, effective in 2016, extended it to online publications. The statute previously said "newspaper," which left web-native publications outside it. It now reads "daily or weekly news publication," reaching online outlets performing the same news-disseminating function. CACI No. 1709 covers the retraction issue.
If the publication does correct, the plaintiff is likewise limited to special damages.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The person who made the statement, and anyone who republished it — a republisher is liable as though they had originated it.
But not an online platform for someone else's content. Federal law immunises interactive computer service providers from liability as the publisher of information provided by another, and it preempts state defamation claims. Sue the person who wrote it, not the site it appeared on.
Only a living person or an entity can be defamed. There is no claim for defaming the dead, and the claim does not survive the plaintiff's death.
A statement about a group is not actionable unless the group is small enough that it is reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff individually.
Common defenses
Truth, which is a complete defense. Substantial truth suffices — a statement is not actionable because a detail is inaccurate if the gist is true.
Opinion, where no provably false factual assertion is implied.
The litigation privilege, Civil Code § 47(b) — absolute, and the most powerful defense in this area. It protects communications made in or in anticipation of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, and it applies regardless of malice. Statements in pleadings, in demand letters, to a prosecutor, or in a complaint to a licensing board are generally untouchable.
The common interest privilege, § 47(c) — qualified, and defeated by malice. It covers communications to someone with a common interest in the subject, which is the provision that protects employment references and internal workplace investigations.
The fair report privilege, for accurate reports of official proceedings and public records.
Anti-SLAPP, and this is the defense that shapes the whole claim. Where the statement was made in a public forum on an issue of public interest, or in connection with an official proceeding, the defendant moves to strike within 60 days. The plaintiff must then show a probability of prevailing — on evidence, not allegations — with discovery automatically stayed. A defendant who wins recovers mandatory fees, and an order denying the motion is immediately appealable, which can add a year.
The § 425.17 exemptions can defeat the motion, particularly the commercial speech exemption where the statement was a representation about the defendant's own business goods or services.
What the claim pays
General damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings — available without proof of specific loss where the defamation is per se.
Special damages, meaning actual pecuniary loss.
Presumed damages, available in per se cases, though actual malice is required to recover them on a matter of public concern.
Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294, on clear and convincing proof — and where § 48a applies, only if a correction was demanded and refused.
No fee-shifting for a winning plaintiff. A winning defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion recovers fees from the plaintiff. The asymmetry runs entirely against the person suing.
Jury trial: yes.
What people get wrong
"I have two years, like other torts." One year, and it runs from publication.
"It's still online, so the clock is still running." No. The single-publication rule starts the clock when the material first became available.
"They said it was their opinion." That label does not protect a statement implying provably false facts.
"I'll sue the website." Federal law immunises platforms for content posted by others. Sue the author.
"They lied about my late father." There is no claim for defaming the dead.
"Every detail has to be accurate." Substantial truth is a defense. The gist is what matters.
"They told the police I stole from them." That is a privileged communication, and the litigation privilege is absolute.
"The worst that happens is I lose." Not on a matter of public interest. You can be ordered to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.
"I have to demand a retraction first." Only against a daily or weekly news publication or a radio broadcast — and failing to demand limits your damages rather than ending your case.
Where it came from
Defamation is among the oldest torts, and for most of its history it was a strict liability claim: publish something false and damaging and you paid, regardless of care.
The constitutional overlay changed it fundamentally in the 1960s, when the United States Supreme Court held the First Amendment requires a public official to prove actual malice. The requirement was later extended to public figures, and private-figure plaintiffs gained a negligence standard with limits on presumed and punitive damages. Those decisions converted a common law tort into a constitutional one.
California's own contribution is procedural, and it is the anti-SLAPP statute. Enacted in 1992 after a documented pattern of lawsuits brought to silence rather than to win, § 425.16 gave defendants an early, fee-shifted exit. It has done more to shape California defamation practice than any substantive rule — and the § 425.17 exemptions were added in 2003 precisely because the statute had begun to be aimed at claims it was never meant to cover.
The retraction statute has been quietly modernised. AB 998 (2016) replaced "newspaper" with "daily or weekly news publication," bringing online outlets inside a provision written for print.
Common questions
How long do I have to sue for defamation in California?
One year from publication, under CCP § 340(c). It is the shortest tort deadline in the state, and there is generally no discovery rule.
The post is still up. Doesn't that restart the clock?
No. Under the single-publication rule, the clock starts when the material first became generally available. Continued availability does not restart it, though a republication aimed at a new audience can.
Can I sue Facebook or Yelp for what someone posted?
No. Federal law immunises online platforms from liability for content provided by other people. Your claim is against the person who wrote it.
What if they said it was just their opinion?
The label does not decide it. The question is whether the statement, in context, implies a provably false assertion of fact.
Do I have to ask for a retraction first?
Only if the publisher is a daily or weekly news publication or a radio broadcaster. Then you have 20 days from learning of it. Missing that limits you to special damages — actual out-of-pocket loss — rather than ending the case.
What is the risk of suing?
If the statement concerned a public issue, the defendant can bring an anti-SLAPP motion. Discovery freezes, you must prove your case on evidence before taking any, and if you lose you pay their attorney's fees.