A false statement of fact about you posted online is libel in New York, and the one-year deadline to sue runs from the day it first went up (CPLR 215(3)). Honest reviews and opinions are protected speech under the anti-SLAPP law, and the platforms cannot be sued for what users post (47 U.S.C. § 230), so the target is the poster. For a poster you can identify, the usual first step is a cease and desist that quotes each statement, names each URL and demands deletion, a retraction and preservation of the evidence.
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. New York law gives real remedies for false statements of fact, and strong protection to opinion and to speech on public issues. 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. The per se categories (serious crime, trade or profession, loathsome disease, and the rarely used unchastity category) carry presumed damages. A message sent only to you is not defamation; one sent to others is. "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 false, each fits a per se category. Because most posts about a business are public-interest speech, you will also need to show the poster knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
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 opinion and protected. 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. Suing over a protected review can cost you the reviewer's legal fees under Civil Rights Law § 70-a, and a letter threatening that suit can end up posted next to the review. 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 report that identifies a specific false factual claim gives the platform something concrete to review. 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: USPS Certified Mail to their address where known, and email.
If you don't know who posted, a letter has nowhere to go yet. The route is a court proceeding, usually a petition for pre-suit disclosure (CPLR 3102(c)) or a lawsuit against "John Doe", and the judge must first be convinced the posts are actually defamatory. 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. For repeated unwanted messages rather than lies, the harassment cease and desist fits better.
You can't sue them. Federal law immunizes platforms for user content. You can report the post under their policies, and a report that identifies a specific false factual claim gives the platform something concrete to review. 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.
Repeating it in your own words is a new publication and can create liability. Courts in other states have held that a plain share of another person's post is protected by the same federal law that shields platforms; New York's appellate courts have not settled it. Adding your own words that repeat or endorse the claim likely is not protected.
Document it now, screenshots with URLs and timestamps. Identifying an anonymous poster requires a court proceeding, usually a petition for pre-suit disclosure or a John Doe lawsuit, and a showing of a real defamation claim; 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.