Each state has its own definition of what constitutes a retraction, and whether a plaintiff's damages are limited when a defendant publishes a retraction. Choose from the list below to determine whether your state has a retraction law, and if so, the procedure to follow if you wish to get the law's benefits. (Note that the guide does not include every state at this time.)
Note: This page covers information specific to Arizona and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Arizona has a retraction statute, A.R.S. § 12‑653.02, that applies to “an action for damages for the publication of a libel in a newspaper or magazine, or of a slander by radio or television broadcast.” The statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications. Because the statute does not explicitly require publication in physical as opposed to electronic form, if an online publication can be characterized as a “newspaper or magazine,” you may have a colorable argument that the retraction law applies. However, at least one federal court in Arizona has stated that the retraction statute applies only to “libel actions based on newspaper or magazine articles” and does not apply to comments made on an online forum. Dealer Comp. Servs. v. Fullers’ White Mt. Motors, Inc., No. CV07-00748-PCT-JAT, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83311 at *19 (D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 2008).
Under A.R.S. § 12‑653.02, a plaintiff must “serve upon the publisher at the place of publication, or broadcaster at the place of broadcast, a written notice specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that the same be corrected . . . within twenty days after actual knowledge of the plaintiff of the publication or broadcast of the statements claimed to be libelous.”
If someone contacts you with a retraction or correction request, you should first determine whether a retraction or correction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction or correction is appropriate, you should issue a retraction or correction “in substantially as conspicuous a manner in the newspaper or magazine, or on the radio or television broadcasting station, as the statements claimed to be libelous, in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast within three weeks after service” of the demand for the correction. A.R.S. § 12‑653.03. If you follow these requirements, you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages. See id.
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for libel, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. The statute provides that he or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages unless he or she can prove actual malice. A.R.S. § 12‑653.03. However, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that the retraction statute violates art. 18, § 6 of the Arizona constitution in part, to the extent that it eliminates “general damages for both loss of reputation and emotional harm, preventing those damaged by defamation from recovering general damages for actual injury.” Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 152 Ariz. 9, 19 (Ariz. 1986). Therefore, the limits on liability might not apply only to punitive damages, and may not apply to the extent a plaintiff can prove actual damage to her reputation or actual emotional harm.
The retraction statute also does not apply not apply “to any publication or broadcast made within thirty days preceding any election, if such publication or broadcast is designed to in any way influence the results of such election.” A.R.S. § 12‑653.05.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Arizona’s retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to California and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
California has a retraction statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 48a, that applies to the "publication of libel in a newspaper" or "slander by radio broadcast." Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, two recent court decisions suggest that an online publisher may be covered by the statute if the publisher's main focus is the rapid dissemination of news.
In the first case, a federal court interpreting California law observed that the legislature passed the retraction statute to protect publishing enterprises that engage "in the immediate dissemination of news," because such enterprises "cannot always check their sources for accuracy and their stories for inadvertent publication errors." Condit v. National Enquirer, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 945, 955 (2002). The court concluded that the National Enquirer, which published the statements at issue in print and online, was not covered by the retraction statute because its primary focus was not the rapid dissemination of news. Thus the court held that the National Enquirer had time to verify the truth of the allegations before publishing the statements.
The federal court's definition of "newspaper" in the National Enquirer case dovetails with an important state appellate court decision referring to "reporters" as persons gathering news for dissemination to the public online. O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). In that case, Jason O'Grady operated an "online news magazine" about Apple in which he published confidential information he received about a new Apple product. Apple wished to sue the person who divulged the confidential information to O'Grady and subpoenaed him for information about the identity of his confidential source. The court concluded that the state shield law applied to O'Grady because he engaged in "open and deliberate publication on a news-oriented Web site of news gathered by that site's operators." For more on the O'Grady case, see the Apple v. Does entry in the CMLP database. Taken together, the O'Grady and Condit decisions suggest that future courts may be willing to apply the state's retraction law to an online work depending on the nature of the publication.
Although O'Grady involves California's shield law, both the O'Grady and the Condit decisions suggest that future courts may be willing to entertain the possibility that the state's retraction law applies to an online publication if the main focus of the publication is the rapid dissemination of news.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the California retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the California retraction statute:
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request (or the plaintiff fails to ask for a retraction as required under the statute) and you are found to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of California's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Florida and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Florida has a retraction statute, Fla. Stat. § 770.02, that applies to a newspaper or periodical's "publication" of a libel, or a "broadcast" of a slander. Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Ross v. Gore, 48 So.2d 412 (Fla. 1950) suggests that an online publisher may be covered by the statute if the publisher's main focus is the dissemination of news.
In Ross, the plaintiff Julian Ross brought suit against publisher R.H. Gore for an allegedly defamatory editorial published in Gore's newspaper, the Fort Lauderdale Daily News. Ross argued that the state's retraction statute violated Florida's constitution because it prevented him from collecting punitive damages. The court disagreed and noted that the retraction statute encouraged the free dissemination of "news" and "fair comment" in a short timeframe by not placing unreasonable restraints on the working news reporter or editor, thus preserving an important component of American democracy. In a later case, an appellate court concluded that the retraction statute applied to anyone writing for a newspaper, and based its reasoning on the need to protect the swift dissemination of news in order to inform the public of "pending matters while there is still time for public opinion to form and be felt." Mancini v. Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702 So.2d 1376 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). Both the Ross and Mancini decisions suggest that future courts may be willing to apply Florida's retraction law to an online publication as long as the publication is dedicated to the rapid dissemination of news.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the Florida retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the Florida retraction statute:
* ten days of notice, for a daily or weekly publication;
* twenty days of notice, for a semimonthly publication;
* forty-five days of notice, for a monthly publication; or
* the next issue, for a work published "less frequently than monthly," as long as the plaintiff serves the notice no later than 45 days prior to such publication.
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Florida's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Georgia and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Georgia has a retraction statute that applies to libel published in a "newspaper or other publication" ( Ga. Code Ann. § 51-5-11) and to a "broadcast" of a slander (Ga. Code Ann. § 51-5-12). (The links direct you to the Georgia Code hosted on Lexis Nexis. If you agree with the terms and conditions of the access, click "Ok." Scroll down and click on the circled plus symbol next to "Title 51," and then on the same symbol next to "Chapter 5" where you will find the sections of the Georgia Code mentioned on this page.)
Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, it defines the term "publication" as any communication made to any person other than the party libeled. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-5-3. This definition stems from the Supreme Court of Georgia's ruling in Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16, 28 (2002). The Mathis case is interesting because the court applied the retraction statute to an online publication. The plaintiff, Thomas Cannon, brought suit over Bruce Mathis' allegedly libelous comments in an Internet chat room. Cannon argued that Mathis' failure to seek a retraction prevented Mathis from receiving punitive damages in accordance with the retraction statute; Mathis disagreed arguing that the retraction statute applied to newspapers and print media only and did not apply to statements made in an Internet chat room. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the retraction statute's use of the term "other publication" encompassed any communication made to a third person, regardless of its medium, because:
It treats a publication for purposes of seeking a retraction the same as a publication for purposes of imposing liability. It acknowledges that the legislature extended the retraction defense originally created for newspapers, magazines, and periodicals to include newspapers and “other publications.” It encourages defamation victims to seek self-help, their first remedy, by “using available opportunities to contradict the lie or correct the error and thereby to minimize its adverse impact on reputation.” It eliminates the difficult task of determining what is a “ written publication” and who is the “print media” at a time when any individual with a computer can become a publisher. It supports free speech by extending the same protection to the private individual who speaks on matters of public concern as newspapers and other members of the press now enjoy. In short, it strikes a balance in favor of “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate in an age of communications when “anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the Internet” can address a worldwide audience of readers in cyberspace.
Thus, the Mathis decision allows the publisher of an online publication to benefit from the Georgia retraction statute as long as the publisher complies with the statute's requirements (discussed below).
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the Georgia retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the Georgia retraction statute:
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for libel, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages. However, note that in a slander case, the plaintiff's retraction request of a defamatory statement has no bearing on whether the plaintiff's ability to recover punitive damages. See Ga. Code Ann. § 51-5-12.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Georgia's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note that even in the absence of any relevant cases, you should still consider correcting or retracting an erroneous statement because your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Indiana and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Indiana has a retraction statute, Ind. Code § 34-15-4-3, which applies to libel published in a "newspaper" or by a "news service." Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, the court's decision in Christopher v. American News Co., 171 F.2d 275 (7th Cir. 1948) suggests that Indiana's retraction statute covers an online publisher if the publisher's primary focus is the reporting of factual occurrences.
In the Christopher case, Louis Christopher brought suit against the American News Company (ANC) for allegedly libelous statements made in The Nation, a weekly magazine. ANC argued that because Christopher neglected to serve it with written notice of the allegedly libelous statements, he did not comply with the Indiana retraction statute and thus could not succeed in his libel suit. The court observed that ANC's argument assumed that The Nation was a "newspaper" and thus subject to Indiana's retraction law. The court disagreed with that assumption, explaining:
Although The Nation does print some news items of general interest, articles, classified advertisements, and editorials, it is not a newspaper in the sense in which the term is commonly used. While the line between a newspaper and other periodicals is difficult to draw, it would seem that a possible distinction might be that a newspaper reports or claims to report occurrences factually, however the facts may be slanted or distorted, whereas a periodical such as The Nation reports facts not primarily for the interest in the factual narrative in and of itself but for some other possible significance.
The court declined to decide whether The Nation was a newspaper stating that it was a question for a later time. However, the Christopher decision suggests that future courts may be willing to entertain the possibility that the state's retraction law applies to an online publication if the main focus of the publication is to report facts that make up a factual narrative with no other significance in mind.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the Indiana retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the Indiana retraction statute:
1. within three days by a news service;
2. within five days, if the newspaper is a daily publication; or
3. within ten days, if the newspaper is a weekly publication.
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for libel, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Indiana's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Massachusetts and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Massachusetts has a retraction statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 93, that applies to the publication of libel. The retraction statute bars a plaintiff from recovering punitive and exemplary damages in a defamation suit, and allows the court or jury to consider a defendant's retraction as a factor in mitigating an award of general damages to the plaintiff. The statute states in its entirety:
Although the statute doesn't state whether it applies to online publishers, the statute's use of the phrase "publication of libel" without limitation would seem to suggest that an online publisher is covered by the Massachusetts retraction statute.Where the defendant in an action for libel, at any time after the publication of the libel hereinafter referred to, either before or after such action is brought, but before the answer is required to be filed therein, gives written notice to the plaintiff or to his attorney of his intention to publish a retraction of the libel, accompanied by a copy of the retraction which he intends to publish, and the retraction is published, he may prove such publication, and, if the plaintiff does not accept the offer of retraction, the defendant may prove such nonacceptance in mitigation of damages. If within a reasonable time after receiving notice in writing from the plaintiff that he claims to be libelled the defendant makes such offer and publishes a reasonable retraction, and such offer is not accepted, he may prove that the alleged libel was published in good faith and without actual malice, and, unless the proof is successfully rebutted, the plaintiff shall recover only for any actual damage sustained. In no action of slander or libel shall exemplary or punitive damages be allowed, whether because of actual malice or want of good faith or for any other reason. Proof of actual malice shall not enhance the damages recoverable for injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the Massachusetts retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the Massachusetts retraction statute, a publisher should send written notice to the plaintiff of:
at any time before the plaintiff files a suit against the publisher, or, by the time of the publisher has to file a response to the plaintiff's lawsuit.
If you comply with this procedure after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited to recovering his or her actual economic losses only.
Even in the unlikely event that your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Massachusetts's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Michigan and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Michigan has a retraction statute, Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2911, that applies to libel "based on a radio or television broadcast," libel "based on a publication," and "other libel." Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, the statute does not require that a libel based on publication be published in a specific medium. Additionally, the statute's inclusion of "other libel" gives rise to the possibility that future courts may apply the state's retraction law to an online publication.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the Michigan retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the Michigan retraction statute:
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. Under the retraction statute, she will be able to recover only for her actual economic losses. You will be able to show your good faith and the jury will be able to consider your retraction in the mitigation of exemplary or punitive damages. Note that under Michigan libel law, "exemplary and punitive damages" are a species of "actual" damages, and are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for "the increased injury to feelings directly attributable to the defendant's fault in publishing the libel." Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, Inc., 421 Mich. 125, 131 (Mich. 1984) (emphasis in original).
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Michigan's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to New Jersey and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
New Jersey has a retraction statute, N.J. Stat. § 2A:43-2, that applies to "the owner, manager, editor, publisher or reporter of any newspaper, magazine, periodical, serial or other publication." Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, it does not require that the article be published in a specific medium (e.g. print only). Thus, if your role can be characterized as the owner, manager, editor, publisher or reporter of an online "newspaper, magazine, periodical, serial or other publication," you have a colorable argument that the retraction law applies you.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the New Jersey retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the New Jersey statute:
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for libel, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover punitive damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of New Jersey's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to New York and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
New York has a retraction statute, N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 78, that applies to the publication of libelous statements. Although the statute is silent on what constitutes publication, New York's Court of Appeals has broadly defined to signify any communication of a defamatory statement to a third party. See Ostrowe v. Lee, 175 NE 505 (N.Y. 1931) for the court's rationale. The Court of Appeal's expansive definition in Ostrowe suggests that a future court will likely find that the retraction statute covers an online publication.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should publish one so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 78, you can use your retraction, and even your offer to publish a retraction, to show mitigating circumstances for the jury to consider in determining damages. The jury may use the retraction to reduce punitive damages but not compensatory damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of New York's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to North Carolina and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
North Carolina has a retraction statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99-2, that applies to libelous statements published in an "article" of a "newspaper or periodical." Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online articles, it also does not require that the article be published in a specific medium. Thus, if your online work can be characterized as a newspaper or periodical, you have a colorable argument that the retraction law applies to your online work.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the North Carolina retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the North Carolina retraction statute:
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for libel, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of North Carolina's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Ohio and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Ohio has a retraction statute, Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.14, which applies to a "newspaper company" that prints, publishes, or circulates a false statement in its "newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication." Under § 11 of the statute, a newspaper company refers to "[a]ny person, firm, partnership, voluntary association, joint-stock association, or corporation, wherever organized or incorporated, engaged in the business of printing or publishing a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical sold or offered for sale in this state." (Emphasis added.) Because the statute does not state that the false statement must be made in a specific medium (e.g. print only), a future court may be persuaded to find that the retraction law applies to a publisher's online periodical publication that is sold or offered for sale in Ohio.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should follow the procedures outlined in the Ohio retraction statute so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
Under the Ohio retraction statute:
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will likely be limited. Under the retraction statute, you will be able to use your retraction to show your good faith and the jury will be able to consider your retraction as a mitigating circumstance to reduce damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Ohio's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Pennsylvania and should be read in conjunction with Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication, which has general information applicable to all states.
While no court has spoken directly on the issue of retractions and online publications, you have a strong argument that a jury can consider your retraction for the purpose of mitigation of damages under Pennsylvania commonlaw.
Although Pennsylvania does not have a retraction statute, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered the effect of a retraction in Wharen v. Dershuck, 264 Pa. 562 (Pa. 1919). In that case, the plantiff George Warren sued the publisher of the newspaper The Plain Speaker over an article describing Wharen's behavior as a mail carrier. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant-publisher, and in his appeal Wharen argued that the judge's instructions to the jury were in error. These instructions included the judge's statement that while the jury could not consider the defendant's retraction for purposes of liability, the jury could consider it to mitigate the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found no reversible error and upheld the jury instructions.
Two other Pennsylvania cases, Duh v. Bethlehem's Globe Publishing Co. (No. 1), 48 Pa. D. & C.2d 268 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1969) and Rossi v. McDonnell, 18 Pa. D. & C.2d 550 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1959), similarly held that a defendant in a libel suit is entitled to offer his or her retraction to a jury to mitigate damages. While it is difficult to predict how a court will rule on whether the above standard applies to online publications, you have a colorable argument that you can offer your retraction to a jury for the purpose of mitigation of damages under Pennsylvania commonlaw.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, issuing a retraction may mitigate your damages in accordance with the Wharen decision.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of the Wharen decision, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. Correcting errors will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, by placating a potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find that a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Texas and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Texas has a retraction statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 73.003, that applies to libel "expressed in written or other graphic form." The statute does not require that the publication has to be in a specific medium (e.g. print only), which leaves open the possibility that the statute may cover an online publication. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 73.001.
Handling Requests to Remove or Retract Material in Texas
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should publish one so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages.
If you issue a "public apology, correction, or retraction" of a false statement and you are found to be liable for defamation, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. Under the Texas retraction statute, you will be able to use your retraction to show your good faith and the jury will be able to consider your retraction in determining the "extent and source" of the plaintiff's actual (economic) damages and to mitigate exemplary damages, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Texas' retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith.
Note: This page covers information specific to Virginia and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Virginia has a retraction statute, Va. Code § 8.01-48, that applies to "the publisher, owner, editor, reporter or employee of any newspaper, magazine or periodical" who face a libel suit for an "article, statement or other matter contained in any such newspaper, magazine or periodical." Although the statute does not specifically state whether it covers online publications, it does not require that the article be published in a specific medium (e.g. print only). Thus, if your role can be characterized as the publisher, owner, editor, reporter or employee of an online newspaper, magazine or periodical, you have a colorable argument that the retraction law applies you.
If someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should issue an "apology or retraction" with "reasonable promptness and fairness" so that you can avail yourself of the statutory benefit of limiting potential defamation damages. See Va. Code § 8.01-48.
If you comply with these procedures after receiving a retraction request and you are found to be liable for libel, the plaintiff's ability to recover damages from you will be limited. He or she will be able to recover only for his or her actual economic losses and will not be able to recover general damages (e.g., loss of reputation generally) or punitive damages.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of Virginia's retraction statute, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note: This page covers information specific to Washington and should be read in conjunction with the general section on retraction in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication which has additional information applicable to all states.
Although Washington does not have a retraction statute, the Supreme Court of Washington decided one case, Coffman v. Spokane Chronicle Pub. Co., 117 P. 596 (Wash. 1911), involving the effect of a publisher's offer to retract its statements in a libel case. In the Coffman case, the plaintiffs Elizabeth and Thomas Coffman brought a defamation suit against the Spokane Chronicle for statements made in the a series of articles published in the Chronicle about their marriage. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Coffmans, and the Spokane Chronicle appealed the jury verdict in favor of the Coffmans, arguing in part that they "had been at all times ready and willing to publish any fair, reasonable, and truthful article or correction which the [plaintiffs] ... might desire" and that the plaintiffs neglected to request such retraction. The court disagreed, noting that duty falls on a newspaper to issue a "full and complete retraction" if it has libeled a person, and that the newspaper can offer the retraction in mitigation of damages.
It is difficult to predict how a court will rule on whether the above standard applies to online publications given that the state only has the Coffman case from 1911 and no retraction statute. However, if someone contacts you with a retraction request, you should first determine whether a retraction is warranted; review the steps under the handling a retraction request section of this guide for help in making this assessment. If you determine that a retraction is appropriate, you should issue one so that you can use it to argue that your damages should be mitigated in accordance with the Coffman decision.
Even if your online publishing activities do not fall within the scope of the Coffman decision, your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.
Note that even in the absence of any relevant cases, you should still consider correcting or retracting an erroneous statement because your willingness to correct past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable, which will increase your credibility, influence, and (hopefully) your page views. It will also diminish the likelihood of your being sued in the first place, as it might placate the potential plaintiff. Furthermore, courts and juries may find a retraction shows your good faith, which will benefit you in a defamation suit.