Articles Posted in Defamation, Libel and Slander

|

As more and more companies use non-disparagement clauses in their Terms of Service and other contracts with their consumers, it can feel to customers like they have no outlet to talk about their negative experiences with certain businesses. Congress has proposed a bill called the Consumer Review Freedom Act, which would prohibit companies from retaliating against consumers who leave negative reviews, but the law is slow to catch up with technology. Fortunately, there are other ways to deal with these non-disparagement clauses without resorting to the courts.

Review sites such as Yelp, Angie’s List, and Trip Advisor can take the initiative and help punish businesses who have been known to prohibit customers from posting negative reviews. Yelp will take down any reviews that have been posted by anyone who was not a consumer or did not have a direct experience with the specific business being reviewed, but that doesn’t always help consumers and there’s more that can be done.

Angie’s List has a “penalty box” in which businesses that do not sufficiently respond to consumer complaints get excluded from category and keyword searches. Only users of the site who know the name of the business can find it, which can seriously injure the business by preventing potential new customers in the area from finding it. Many businesses depend on consumer review sites such as Angie’s List and Yelp, so by making it more difficult for potential customers to find them, the sites can provide a serious incentive for businesses not to try to mess with their consumers’ reviews. Trip Advisor also has a penalty sign it displays on pages where it has detected instances of possible fraud. Continue reading ›

|

Technology has been advancing so quickly in just the past few years that the law is still struggling to keep up, but the law is successfully keeping pace, at least in some areas.

Dr. Rosalind Griffin recently demonstrated what appears to be a lack of understanding of both defamation law and how the Internet works when she filed an ethics complaint against an attorney, Steven Gursten, for allegedly writing defamatory statements about her on his blog. She demanded that the ethics commission intercede and force Gursten to remove his blog post even though she didn’t file a slander suit and would never likely be able to obtain such a prior restraint on speech through a court action.  Griffin instead opted to use an ethics charge to block speech.

Gursten wrote that Dr. Griffin had testified in court that his client had told her things that directly contradicted what Gursten’s client said in Dr. Griffin’s recorded medical examination. The blog post Gursten wrote according to Dr. Griffin implied Dr. Griffin’s conduct constituted perjury and a serious abuse of her position as an insurance medical examiner. Continue reading ›

|

In order to file a lawsuit against an individual or organization alleging violation of the law, the plaintiff must be able to allege specific and clear violations of the law, as well as actual damages the plaintiff suffered as a result of the alleged violation. This is as true of defamation lawsuits as it is of any other law.

Although the First Amendment protects every citizen’s right to free speech, it does not allow public statements about other people who are public figures that are intentionally or deliberately false and accuse of them of certain types of misconduct and prohibits false statements against ordinary people that wrongly accuse them of certain types of misconduct. In order to be considered defamatory, a statement has to be made publicly, and with the result that the target suffered damage to their public reputation and/or career. Opinions and general rhetoric do not qualify as defamation. Continue reading ›

|

With steroids running rampant in the world of professional athletes, many people just assume that most, if not all, prominent athletes are using some sort of drug (or drugs) to artificially enhance their performance. At the same time, many people who idolize certain athletes and look up to them as role models are crushed when they find out these athletes have been taking drugs to gain an unfair advantage. The field of professional athletes is extremely competitive, and when millions of dollars are on the line, the temptation to do whatever it takes to be the best can sometimes be too much to resist.

But all artificial performance enhancers are banned from professional sports. As a result, when an athlete is caught using illegal drugs, it usually means the end of their career. Because using the drugs is both immoral and illegal, any accusation of drug use must be taken very seriously. Continue reading ›

|

An injunction against speech harms not just the speakers but also the listeners (in this case the viewers and readers). “[T]he First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the pub-lic may draw.” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see also Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas”). The injunction in this case is so broad and vague that it threatens to silence Fuller and Hartman completely.

The issue of whether an injunction can ever issue to forbid even defamatory speech from being published, even after a court has determined such speech to be defamatory, has never been decided by the Supreme Court.  Without deciding this issue, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals discussed it in detail in a recent opinion, McCarthy v Fuller.  You can view the opinion here. Continue reading ›

|

Despite the schoolyard saying, words can hurt you. Negative information that gets spread through the public can affect both your personal and professional lives, which is why legislators have taken steps to protect citizens from language that has the potential to be harmful.

But the U.S. Constitution promises all its citizens the right to free speech. This is because the founders of our country wanted the people to feel safe to criticize public figures, including politicians. The idea is that, if people feel free to criticize public figures, it allows public discussion of those figures. The law asserts the people’s right to free and open discussion of the people they are voting to govern them because uninhibited discussion allows the people to make the most informed decisions when they go to the voting polls. Continue reading ›

|

The Internet has done a lot of wonderful things for us, including facilitating communication beyond what most people would have ever thought possible. This has proven to be both good and bad as people have the opportunity, not only to communicate with each other, but with the entire world regarding everything from national news to what they ate for breakfast.

When people talk about an organization or person online, it can frequently cause problems for the organization or individuals being talked about. It’s well known that the people who write online reviews are rarely the people who had a mediocre experience. It tends to be those who had an excellent or a terrible experience and that can result in a skewed online presentation of the organization or person. Continue reading ›

|

The line between freedom of speech and defamation can be a fine line at times. Although the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to speak our minds, it does not give us total immunity when saying things that have the potential to seriously damage another person’s reputation and/or career.

That line is again being contested in a current defamation lawsuit against Bill Cosby. Three women, Tamara Green, Therese Serignese, and Linda Traitz, who are just three of dozens of women who claim they were sexually assaulted by Cosby decades ago are now filing a lawsuit against the entertainer for defamation.

The lawsuit alleges Cosby’s representatives damaged their reputations by denying their allegations of sexual assault in language that was sometimes disparaging. They claim their accusations were dismissed as “ridiculous claims” and “absurd fabrications” to give two of the shorter alleged remarks. The lawsuit alleges these comments were intended to discredit the victims. One statement allegedly touched on Traitz’s criminal and personal record to discredit her allegations. Continue reading ›

|

Our Chicago libel and slander lawyers concentrate in this area of the law. We have defended or prosecuted a number of defamation and libel cases, including cases representing a consumer sued by a large luxury used car dealer in federal court for hundreds of negative internet reviews and videos which resulted in substantial media coverage of the suit; one of Loyola University’s largest contributors when the head basketball coach sued him for libel after he was fired; and a lawyer who was falsely accused of committing fraud with the false allegation published to the Dean of the University of Illinois School of Law, where the lawyer attended law school and the President of the University of Illinois. One of our partners also participated in representing a high profile athlete against a well-known radio shock jock.

Our Chicago defamation attorneys defend individuals’ First Amendment and free speech rights to post on Facebook, Yelp and other websites information that criticizes businesses and addresses matters of public concern. Our Chicago Cybersquatting attorneys also represent and prosecute claims on behalf of businesses throughout the Chicago area including in Carol Stream and Glen Elyn and Elmhurst, who have been unfairly and falsely criticized by consumers and competitors in defamatory publications in the online and offline media. We have successfully represented businesses who have been the victim of competitors setting up false rating sites and pretend consumer rating sites that are simply forums to falsely bash or business clients. We have also represented and defended consumers First Amendment and free speech rights to criticize businesses who are guilty of consumer fraud and false advertising.

Continue reading ›

|

Anyone who runs for office would be well-advised to prepare themselves for some mud-slinging. Anyone who lives in the United States cannot help but be exposed to political candidates accusing each other of various indiscretions and dishonesties. These harmful statements are allowed to go unchecked because of the freedom of speech granted to all citizens of the United States under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Although intentionally defaming an individual can be punished under the law, there are limits to the instances in which this can happen. Most courts will protect language referring to a public figure, such as a celebrity or politician, because allowing free speech about public figures is considered to be in the public’s best interest. Promoting free discussion helps keep citizens informed about people and events that could potentially affect them.  Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design