Most defamation now happens on a screen. A Google review, a Facebook post in a neighborhood group, a Reddit thread, an Instagram story, a message dropped into a group chat with forty members. Legally it is libel, written, published, permanent, and New York law is more favorable to you than most people assume. The practical problems are different from old-fashioned libel: the statement is spreading while you read this, the speaker may be pseudonymous, and the platform is not on your side.
The same rule as everywhere: a false statement of fact, published to others, that harms your reputation. Per se categories, crime, trade or profession, loathsome disease, serious sexual misconduct, carry presumed damages. "This dentist is running an insurance scam." "She lost her license." "He was arrested for hitting his girlfriend." "They stole our deposit and do it to everyone." If it's false, each is a libel per se claim.
Reviews. A genuine account of a customer's own experience is opinion and, in New York, protected speech on a matter of public interest under the anti-SLAPP law (Civil Rights Law § 76-a). "Rude staff, overpriced, would not go back" is untouchable. A review becomes actionable only when it asserts a false fact, the reviewer was never a customer, or claims a specific event that didn't happen. A cease and desist sent over a protected review can cost you the reviewer's legal fees. This is the screen every intake goes through first.
The platform. Google, Meta, Reddit, and Yelp are immune from defamation liability for what users post (federal law, 47 U.S.C. § 230). You cannot sue them; you can report the post under their policies, and a platform is more likely to act on a report backed by a lawyer's letter that identifies a specific false factual claim. The target of your letter is the poster.
One year from first publication (CPLR 215(3)), and New York applies the single-publication rule to the internet: the year generally runs from the date the post went up, not from each view or share. A materially changed or re-posted statement can restart it; a post that simply stays up does not. Move early.
It names every URL. It quotes each statement verbatim with its date. It states the per se category and why the statement is false. It demands deletion within a short deadline, a retraction in the same forum, and cessation. It directs the poster to preserve their account data, drafts, and messages, which cuts off the delete-and-deny move. And it is sent in a way the poster can't claim not to have seen: mail to their address where known, and email or platform message where that's all you have.
If you don't know who posted, a letter has nowhere to go yet. The route is a lawsuit against "John Doe" followed by a subpoena to the platform for the account's identifying information, a real process, but a litigation one. An honest first step is to document everything now (screenshots with URLs and timestamps) and to ask the attorney whether the facts justify that path; often the poster's identity is obvious from context and a letter can go out the same week.
For an identified poster, the attorney-signed defamation cease and desist is $499 flat: screened first, drafted for the medium, signed by a New York attorney, and sent within 48 hours. If someone is using your photo in their advertising rather than lying about you, the stolen photos letter is the right tool; for repeated unwanted messages, the harassment cease and desist.
You can't sue them, federal law immunizes platforms for user content. You can report the post under their policies, and reports that identify a specific false factual claim, backed by an attorney letter, are taken more seriously. The legal target is the poster.
Almost never. Ratings and honest accounts of a customer's experience are opinion and protected speech in New York. A review that asserts a false fact, a customer who never existed, an event that didn't happen, can be.
Yes. Republication is publication. Someone who shares a defamatory post to their own audience can be liable alongside the original poster.
Document it now, screenshots with URLs and timestamps. Identifying an anonymous poster requires a lawsuit and a subpoena to the platform; whether that's worth it depends on the harm, and the attorney will tell you straight.
No. New York's single-publication rule generally runs the year from the original posting date. A substantially changed or re-posted statement can restart it; passive views do not.