G.L. c. 260, § 4; G.L. c. 231, §§ 59H, 93; Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, 477 Mass. 141 (2017), 483 Mass. 200 (2019)
Defamation in Massachusetts — three years, and the anti-SLAPP risk
A claim in Massachusetts trial courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Defamation is the claim for a false statement of fact that damaged your reputation. In Massachusetts it carries a three-year deadline, a plaintiff's burden on falsity, and a constitutional overlay that protects opinion absolutely.
It also carries a risk that runs the other way. The anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H, lets a defendant whose statement was petitioning activity move to dismiss early — and a plaintiff who loses that motion pays the defendant's costs and attorney's fees. Massachusetts defamation plaintiffs face a real downside that defamation plaintiffs in most states do not.
What the claim is
Someone told other people something false about you and it hurt your reputation.
Where the right comes from
Common law, constrained by the First Amendment and by the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP and retraction statutes.
What a plaintiff has to prove
- A statement of fact concerning the plaintiff;
- That was false;
- Published to at least one third party;
- Fault — at least negligence as to falsity for a private plaintiff on a private matter; actual malice where the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, or in some circumstances where the matter is one of public concern; and
- Damages — economic loss, or a statement actionable per se without proof of special damages.
Massachusetts calls written defamation libel and spoken defamation slander, and the distinction survives mainly in the damages rules.
Falsity is the plaintiff's burden
In Massachusetts a defamation plaintiff proves the statement was false. Truth is not merely a defence to be established by the defendant — falsity is part of the case.
And substantial truth is enough for the defendant. A statement with minor inaccuracies is not actionable where its gist or sting is true. A report that someone was arrested twice when they were arrested once will not support a claim.
Opinion is not actionable
Only a statement that can be proved false is defamatory. A statement of pure opinion is protected, however harsh.
The line falls where an opinion implies undisclosed defamatory facts. "In my opinion he is dishonest," said in a way that implies the speaker knows of specific dishonest acts, can be actionable. The same words, offered as a conclusion from facts the audience already knows, generally are not.
Rhetorical hyperbole, insult, name-calling and figurative language are not statements of fact. "That contractor is a crook" is far more likely to be protected than "that contractor took my deposit and never came back."
Defamation per se
Some categories are actionable without proof of specific loss:
- a statement charging the plaintiff with a crime;
- a statement that the plaintiff has a loathsome disease;
- a statement prejudicing the plaintiff in their profession, trade or business; and
- in slander, an imputation of serious sexual misconduct.
The business category does most of the modern work — an accusation that a professional is incompetent, dishonest or unlicensed falls within it.
The anti-SLAPP statute
G.L. c. 231, § 59H allows a special motion to dismiss a claim based on the defendant's exercise of the right to petition. Discovery is stayed while the motion is pending, and it is heard early.
The framework was set in Duracraft and reworked in Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, 477 Mass. 141 (2017), and 483 Mass. 200 (2019):
- The special movant must show the claim is based solely on its own petitioning activity, with no other substantial basis.
- The burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who can defeat the motion two ways: by showing the petitioning was a sham — devoid of reasonable factual support or arguable legal basis, and causing actual injury — or, under Blanchard, by showing that its suit was not brought primarily to chill the movant's legitimate petitioning.
The second route was added because the sham test was defeating meritorious claims that happened to involve petitioning conduct.
Petitioning is broad. Complaints to a government agency, statements at a public hearing, statements to police, court filings, letters to a licensing board, and communications reasonably likely to encourage government review all qualify. A defamation claim over a complaint someone made to a regulator is squarely inside it.
A successful movant recovers costs and reasonable attorney's fees. That fee exposure is the single most important practical fact about suing over statements in Massachusetts.
The retraction statute
G.L. c. 231, § 93 lets a defendant who published a defamatory statement limit damages by publishing a retraction in the manner and within the time the statute provides. Demanding a retraction costs a plaintiff nothing; a refusal helps prove the defendant's state of mind, and an acceptance may resolve the reputational harm faster than a lawsuit can.
How long you have to file
Three years under G.L. c. 260, § 4, running from publication.
Massachusetts applies the single publication rule: an entire edition, broadcast or web posting is one publication, and the period runs from when it was first made available. Continued availability of an old post does not restart the clock, though a republication — a material modification, or reposting to a new audience — can.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing. Consider a retraction demand, and consider the anti-SLAPP exposure before filing.
What the claim pays
Actual damages — harm to reputation, mental suffering, and economic loss.
Presumed damages in a per se case, where the category applies and the constitutional standard permits.
Twelve percent prejudgment interest, running from commencement of the action.
No punitive damages, absent a statute — Massachusetts does not allow them here.
No attorney's fees for a winning plaintiff. A winning anti-SLAPP movant does recover them, which makes the fee exposure entirely one-directional.
Injunctive relief is rarely available. Prior restraints on speech face a heavy constitutional presumption against them.
Who can be sued
The person who made the statement.
A publisher or broadcaster that repeated it — republication is its own publication.
Not an interactive computer service for content another person provided, which 47 U.S.C. § 230 protects. The website that hosted the review is not the defendant; the person who wrote it is.
Common defenses
- Truth or substantial truth.
- Opinion, including rhetorical hyperbole.
- Absolute privilege — statements in judicial proceedings by parties, witnesses, attorneys and judges, and certain legislative and executive communications.
- Conditional privilege — statements made in good faith on a subject in which the speaker and the recipient share a legitimate interest, which covers most employment references and internal workplace reports, lost only by malice or unnecessary publication.
- The fair report privilege, for accurate accounts of official proceedings.
- No publication, or publication only to the plaintiff.
- The anti-SLAPP statute.
- Limitations, with the single publication rule.
What people get wrong
Opinion is protected, and most online abuse is opinion. A negative review that says the work was poor is opinion. One that says the contractor was unlicensed, when they were licensed, is fact.
Falsity is yours to prove. A plaintiff who cannot show the statement was false does not win by pointing out the defendant did not prove it was true.
Hurt feelings are not defamation. The statement has to be false, factual, and published.
Suing over a complaint to an agency can cost you the defendant's legal fees. The anti-SLAPP statute reaches petitioning activity, and the fee award is mandatory for a successful movant.
You cannot sue the platform. Section 230 protects the website; sue the author.
An old post does not reset the clock just because it is still online.
Where it came from
Defamation is among the oldest civil claims, and until 1964 it was largely a matter of state common law, with liability imposed without regard to fault and damages presumed.
New York Times v. Sullivan and the cases after it made it a constitutional subject. Fault became an element. Opinion became protected. Presumed damages narrowed. A body of law built to protect reputation was reshaped around the risk that it would be used to suppress speech.
Massachusetts added its own layer in 1994 with the anti-SLAPP statute, aimed at a specific abuse: developers and employers suing citizens who had objected to them before a zoning board or a regulator, where the point of the lawsuit was the cost of defending it rather than the recovery. The statute answered with an early motion, a discovery stay and a mandatory fee award.
That solved the original problem and created a new one, which Blanchard addressed — a plaintiff with a genuine grievance could lose because the defendant's conduct happened to include a petition. The current framework, with its two routes for the plaintiff, is the compromise. It leaves Massachusetts a state where a defamation claim touching any dealing with government carries an asymmetric risk that has to be weighed before filing.
Common questions
How long do I have to sue for defamation in Massachusetts?
Three years from publication. Continued availability of an old post does not restart the period.
Is a bad online review defamation?
Only if it states false facts. Opinion about quality is protected, and the website that hosts it is not liable.
Do I have to prove the statement was false?
Yes. Falsity is part of the plaintiff's case, and substantial truth defeats it.
What is anti-SLAPP?
A statute allowing early dismissal of claims based on petitioning activity — complaints to government, court filings, statements at hearings. A defendant who wins recovers costs and attorney's fees from you.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
No. Only a successful anti-SLAPP movant does.
Can I get a court order to take it down?
Rarely. Prior restraints on speech face a heavy constitutional presumption against them.