Defamation claims in Michigan
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids civil litigation lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. False statements about a person or business can spread quickly online. This page covers defamation questions in Michigan, including what must be proved, retraction demands, public figures, online reviews, anonymous posters, statements made in lawsuits or job references, and filing deadlines. I act for either side, whether the person who was written about or the person accused of writing. The short answers below come from my Michigan legal library, and each links to the full answer.
Most defamation disputes in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Wyoming and the rest of Kent County start with something small that spreads. A customer calls a contractor a thief in an online review. A former supervisor tells a new employer something untrue. A neighbor posts an accusation on a community page. The first thing I check is the calendar. The limit for suing on libel or slander is one year under MCL 600.5805(11), and under MCL 600.5827 a claim accrues when the wrong was done, regardless of when damage results. The Michigan Supreme Court applied that rule to a defamation claim in Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21, 24-25 (2005).
A person who sues has to prove four things, which the Michigan Supreme Court listed in Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich. 102, 113 (2010): a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, an unprivileged communication to a third party, fault amounting at least to negligence, and either a statement that is actionable without special harm (defamation per se) or special harm caused by the publication. The fault standard depends on who the plaintiff is.
Michigan also has a statute, effective March 24, 2026, that lets some defendants ask a court to dismiss a speech-based lawsuit early. I cover it below. I do not promise outcomes, but I will tell you where you stand before you spend money on a fight.
Michigan defamation claims, deadlines and defenses at a glance
How these rules apply to your case depends on the exact words, where they appeared, who read them and what happened afterward.
| Claim or issue | What must be shown | Time limit or key rule | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel or slander | A false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff, an unprivileged communication to a third party, fault of at least negligence, and per se actionability or special harm | 1 year; accrues when the wrong was done | MCL 600.5805(11); MCL 600.5827; Smith, 487 Mich. 102, 113 (2010) |
| Public official or public figure | Clear and convincing proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether the statement was false | A deliberate decision not to learn facts that might confirm probable falsity can be reckless disregard | MCL 600.2911(6); Smith, 487 Mich. 102, 117 (2010) |
| Private individual | A defamatory falsehood concerning the individual, published negligently | Recovery under this provision is limited to economic damages, including attorney fees | MCL 600.2911(7) |
| Words imputing a crime or a lack of chastity | Actionable in themselves; for a crime, limited to crimes involving moral turpitude or an infamous punishment | Some general damages are available without proof of loss | MCL 600.2911(1); Burden, 240 Mich. App. 723, 727-730 (2000); Lakin v. Rund, 318 Mich. App. 127 (2016) |
| Author concealed the claim or who is liable | Fraudulent concealment of the claim or of the identity of the person liable | Suit within 2 years after discovery, even if the year has run | MCL 600.5855; Hope-Jackson v. Washington, 311 Mich. App. 602, 615-618 (2015) |
The year runs from the statement, and each new statement is its own claim. In Mitan, the Supreme Court held that the claim accrued when a remark was made to a reporter and that the later broadcast did not extend the year against the speaker. 474 Mich. 21, 22-25 (2005). In Redmond v. Heller, the Court of Appeals recognized that each publication of a defamatory statement is independently actionable, so a person who repeats an accusation in new posts can be sued over the statements made inside the year. 332 Mich. App. 415 (2020). For a post that sits online, I count from the first date it appeared.
What the person who was written about has to prove
A false and defamatory statement of fact. A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm a person’s reputation enough to lower that person in the estimation of the community or to deter others from dealing with the person. It has to be about the plaintiff, it has to be false, and it has to state something provable as false. 487 Mich. 102, 113, 128 (2010). A statement phrased as opinion can still imply a fact. A review that says the service was slow is opinion. A review that says the owner stole deposits can be checked, and that is the kind of statement I take seriously.
The exact words. A plaintiff has to plead a defamation claim with specificity by identifying the exact language alleged to be defamatory. Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Doe 1, 300 Mich. App. 245, 262-263 (2013). I want a dated screenshot and the web address first.
Fault. For a public official or public figure, the statute requires clear and convincing proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, and in Smith the Supreme Court said that a mere failure to investigate is not reckless disregard but a purposeful avoidance of the truth is. MCL 600.2911(6); 487 Mich. 102, 117 (2010). Who counts as a public figure can be argued either way, so I look at the person’s role before I assume which standard applies.
Per se or special harm. Words imputing a lack of chastity are treated like words imputing a crime and are actionable in themselves. MCL 600.2911(1). Where defamation per se occurs, the person defamed may recover general damages in at least a nominal amount, and failure to prove damages is not a ground for dismissal. Burden v. Elias Bros. Big Boy Restaurants, 240 Mich. App. 723, 727-728 (2000). The category is narrower than it sounds. In Lakin v. Rund, the Court of Appeals held that words charging a crime are defamation per se only if the crime involves moral turpitude or would subject the person to an infamous punishment, and that a false accusation of simple battery did not qualify. 318 Mich. App. 127 (2016). The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. No. 155103 (Mich. May 5, 2017) (order). Otherwise the plaintiff needs to prove special harm.
Defenses and answers I look at in a defamation case
Whether I am drafting the complaint or the answer, these are my starting questions.
The deadline. A limitations defense is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded. MCR 2.111(F)(3) lists the statute of limitations and immunity granted by law among the defenses a party must plead, and a defense not asserted in the responsive pleading or by motion is waived under MCR 2.111(F)(2). A motion based on the statute of limitations is made under MCR 2.116(C)(7).
Truth. The statement has to be false, so the cleanest answer to many claims is that it was accurate. A defendant who gives notice that the words were true is not treated as having proved malice just because the defense is not sustained, and may prove mitigating circumstances, including the sources of the information and the grounds for belief. MCL 600.2911(3). I ask a defendant to bring proof of what actually happened, not only a statement that it was true.
Opinion, exaggeration and a defective complaint. In Ghanam, the Court of Appeals held that anonymous message board comments using sarcasm, jokes and an emoticon were not defamatory as a matter of law, and that the plaintiff’s claims were facially deficient under MCR 2.116(C)(8). 303 Mich. App. 522, 543, 545-549 (2014). Context decides it, so I read the whole thread.
Absolute privilege. Statements made by judges, attorneys and witnesses in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged if relevant, material or pertinent to the issue, even if false. Oesterle v. Wallace applied it to a settlement letter written after probate litigation had begun. 272 Mich. App. 260, 264-268 (2006).
Qualified privilege. A good-faith statement on a proper occasion carries a qualified privilege, which a plaintiff overcomes by showing actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. General allegations of malice are not enough. Prysak v. R L Polk Co., 193 Mich. App. 1, 14-15 (1992). For job references, MCL 423.452 lets an employer disclose job-performance information documented in the personnel file to the employee or a prospective employer on request, and a good-faith disclosure is immune from civil liability. Good faith is presumed unless the evidence shows the employer knew the information was false or misleading, acted with reckless disregard for the truth, or disclosed it contrary to a statute.
Fair and true reports. Damages cannot be awarded in a libel action for a fair and true report of matters of public record or a public and official proceeding, but the protection does not reach material added by the person publishing the report. MCL 600.2911(3).
The platform is a different defendant. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service is to be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider, and it bars inconsistent state-law claims. 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), (e)(3). The Sixth Circuit adopted a material contribution test: a website is responsible only for what makes the content unlawful, and selecting a post for publication is not enough. Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398, 408-409, 413, 415-416 (6th Cir. 2014). The protection does not cover the person who wrote the post. 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(3).
A 2026 Michigan law that can end a speech-based lawsuit early
The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, 2025 PA 52, took effect on March 24, 2026, and applies to a civil action filed, or a cause of action asserted in a civil action, on or after that date. MCL 691.1863. It matters whether you are the person sued or the person thinking about suing.
What it covers. An eligible cause of action is one based on a communication in a governmental proceeding, a communication on an issue under consideration in such a proceeding, or the exercise of the right of free speech, press, assembly, petition or association on a matter of public concern. MCL 691.1852(1)(d). The act excludes some claims, including a claim against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services when the claim arises from a communication related to that sale or lease. MCL 691.1852(2).
How it works. A party served with a pleading that asserts an eligible cause of action may file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss all or part of the action not later than 60 days after service, or later on a showing of good cause. MCL 691.1853. Filing the motion stays all other proceedings between the moving party and the responding party, including discovery, although the court may allow limited discovery. MCL 691.1854. The court must hear the motion within 60 days after it is filed unless it orders a later hearing for good cause, and must rule within 60 days after the hearing. MCL 691.1855; MCL 691.1858. The Michigan Supreme Court has also adopted MCR 2.114 for these motions. A defendant has a 60-day window for the special motion that runs separately from the answer deadline, so the answer date cannot be ignored. The statute is new, so I check for current decisions before advising anyone to file or oppose a special motion.
What the motion has to show. The court must dismiss with prejudice if the moving party establishes that the cause of action is an eligible one, the responding party fails to establish that an exclusion applies, and either the responding party fails to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element or the moving party establishes a failure to state a claim or the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. MCL 691.1857(1). A moving party who prevails is awarded costs, reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses. MCL 691.1860. A moving party may appeal as of right from an order denying the motion, within 21 days after entry of the order. MCL 691.1859.
Online reviews, anonymous posters and what a court will require first
Identifying the poster. The right to speak anonymously is not absolute. In Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Doe 1, the Court of Appeals held that a protective order under MCR 2.302(C) and summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) adequately protect a defendant who knows about the suit and is taking part in it. 300 Mich. App. 245, 265-267 (2013). In Ghanam, the court held that the plaintiff must first make reasonable efforts to notify a poster who may not know about the case, at a minimum by a message on the same board or forum where possible, and that the court must evaluate the complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8) even if no one has moved. 303 Mich. App. 522, 530, 540-541 (2014). Expect a motion fight before a subpoena produces a name.
When the author hid who they were. The concealment statute allows suit within 2 years after discovery when a person who may be liable fraudulently conceals the claim or the identity of the person who is liable. MCL 600.5855. In Hope-Jackson v. Washington, the arbitrator found that a school board member had actively concealed her role as administrator of a website where posts about a former superintendent appeared, and the Court of Appeals held that the statute covers concealment of identity. 311 Mich. App. 602, 615-618 (2015). A poster who simply uses a screen name has not necessarily concealed anything, so where I can file within the year and name the poster as a Doe, I do not rely on tolling.
When the false statement is aimed at a business
The same false statement can support more than one claim, each with its own elements and deadline. In Wilkerson v. Carlo, a horse owner and trainer was publicly accused of race-fixing and barred from racing, and the Court of Appeals held that a tortious interference action was subject to the three-year tort period even though defamatory statements caused the interference. 101 Mich. App. 629, 631-635 (1980).
A third theory is injurious falsehood. In Kollenberg v. Ramirez, the Court of Appeals described it as a false statement harmful to the interests of another, published with intent to harm pecuniary interests by someone who knows it is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth. The court applied the three-year period to the special pecuniary damages alleged and held that general damages for injury to reputation were not recoverable there. 127 Mich. App. 345, 351-355 (1983). A pleading label does not buy extra time, so I calendar the one-year date and treat anything longer as a possible bonus.
Damages, remedies and consequences
Actual damages. In a libel or slander action the plaintiff is entitled to recover only the actual damages suffered in respect to property, business, trade, profession, occupation or feelings. MCL 600.2911(2)(a). A private individual who proves only negligent publication is limited to economic damages, including attorney fees. MCL 600.2911(7). The Court of Appeals has held that the two per se actions in subsection (1) are not subject to those restrictions. Burden, 240 Mich. App. 723, 729-730 (2000). I work out which category a statement falls into before I put a number on a claim.
Retractions and punitive damages. Exemplary and punitive damages are not recoverable in a libel action unless the plaintiff, before suing, gives the defendant notice to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so. The retraction has to match the original, which for a publication means the same size type and editions and, as far as practicable, the same position. MCL 600.2911(2)(b). A written demand sent early, with proof of delivery, makes it easier to show notice was given.
How I handle a defamation case
- Capture the statement and fix the deadline. I start with the exact words, the web address, the date, the platform and the people who saw it. I calendar one year from the earliest statement and treat any longer period as something to confirm.
- Sort the claim. I decide whether the words state a checkable fact, who the plaintiff is, whether the words fall in a per se category, and whether a privilege or the 2026 act is in play.
- Retraction demand or response. If you are the one written about, I decide with you whether to send a retraction demand before filing, because it affects punitive damages and can end a dispute.
- File, serve and answer. A defendant served with a summons and complaint in Michigan has 21 days to serve and file an answer or take other action permitted by the rules, and 28 days if service is made outside Michigan or by registered mail. MCR 2.108(A)(1)-(2). The answer has to plead the affirmative defenses.
- Special motion, discovery and summary disposition. If the 2026 act applies, I decide within the 60-day window whether to file a special motion. Otherwise I use MCR 2.116 where the pleadings or the evidence support it.
- Settlement and trial. If the case does not resolve by agreement, I am prepared to try it.
Ways a defamation dispute may end without a trial
None of these is automatic. A post taken down, a correction published or a retraction made in the form the statute describes can resolve the dispute and limit the damages claim. A settlement can address a payment, the removal of statements and what each side will say in the future. A court can dismiss a claim on a motion under MCR 2.116 or, where it applies, a special motion under the 2026 act, because the words were opinion, the year ran, a privilege applies or the complaint did not quote the words. A plaintiff may also drop the case.
What I need from you
Bring screenshots of the statement with the date, the web address and the name of the platform or speaker. Bring a list of the people who saw it or heard it, anything that shows the statement is true or false, and the records that tie any lost customers, job or business to it. If you are the one accused, bring the summons and complaint and note the date and manner of service, because the answer deadline runs from service. Do not delete posts, messages or accounts, do not post more about the dispute, and do not contact the other side to argue about it. Do not sign a retraction, a release or a settlement until I have read it.
Where your Kent County defamation case will be heard
I represent clients in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. Under MCL 600.8301(1), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Kent County district courts include the 61st District Court in Grand Rapids, the 59th in Walker and Grandville, the 62A in Wyoming, the 62B in Kentwood and the 63rd for Rockford, Lowell, Cedar Springs, East Grand Rapids and the surrounding townships. Larger claims are filed in the Kent County Circuit Court, the 17th Judicial Circuit.
Why people hire me for a Michigan defamation matter
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I give you the strengths and weaknesses of the case straight, including what it could cost you. I act for the person who was written about and for the person accused, and I build the case the facts and the exact words support.
Fees depend on the type of case, its complexity and whether it is likely to go to trial. I explain my fee arrangement at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people with a defamation claim in Michigan
What do I have to prove in a Michigan defamation case?
The Michigan Supreme Court stated four elements in Smith v Anonymous Joint Enterprise: a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, an unprivileged communication to a third party, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and either actionability irrespective of special harm, called defamation per se, or the existence of special harm caused by publication.
Is it harder to win a defamation case if I am a public figure or public official?
Yes. Under MCL 600.2911(6), an action for libel or slander based on a communication involving public officials or public figures is not allowed unless the claim is sustained by clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. For a private individual, the statute requires the falsehood be published negligently and limits recovery under that provision to economic damages, including attorney fees.
When does the one-year clock start on a defamatory statement in Michigan, and does a repost start a new year?
The year runs from the date the statement was made, not from the date you found out or the date it hurt you (MCL 600.5805(11), MCL 600.5827). In Mitan v Campbell, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a television station’s later broadcast of the statement did not extend the year against the person who first said it. A new, separate statement by the same person is treated differently: the Court of Appeals counts each one as its own claim with its own year.
The person who posted about me is anonymous. Does the one-year defamation deadline wait until I find out who it is?
Not automatically. The one-year period in MCL 600.5805(11) runs from the statement. MCL 600.5855 allows suit within 2 years after discovery if the person liable fraudulently conceals the claim or the identity of the person liable, and in Hope-Jackson v Washington the Court of Appeals applied it to a hidden website author. The trigger is fraudulent concealment, not anonymity as such, so do not rely on it without filing early.
Can I make a website or internet provider reveal who wrote an anonymous post about me?
Sometimes, but Michigan courts do not hand over an identity on request. In Ghanam v Does, the Court of Appeals held that when the anonymous poster may not know about the suit, the plaintiff must first make reasonable efforts to notify them, such as a message on the same forum, and the court must test the complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8) even without a motion. The complaint has to quote the exact words claimed to be defamatory.
Can I sue over a harsh online review or social media post, or is it just protected opinion?
A statement can support a defamation claim only if it asserts something that can be proved false. Rhetorical hyperbole and pure opinion are protected, and the Court of Appeals has said readers tend to discount anonymous comments on online forums. A post that accuses you of a crime or specific misconduct, stated as fact, can still be actionable, so the exact words and context decide it.
Can I sue the website or platform for a false review that someone else posted about me?
Generally not for what a user wrote. 47 USC 230(c)(1) says a provider or user of an interactive computer service is not to be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another, and 230(e)(3) bars inconsistent state-law claims. The Sixth Circuit, in Jones v Dirty World, held a website loses that protection only when it is responsible for what makes the content unlawful. The person who wrote the post is not protected by this statute.
Is what someone says in a lawsuit, to my employer, or in a job reference protected from a defamation claim?
Sometimes. Statements by judges, attorneys and witnesses in a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged if relevant to the issue, even if false, and the Court of Appeals applied that to a settlement letter sent after suit began (Oesterle v Wallace). Other good-faith statements on a proper occasion carry a qualified privilege that you overcome only by showing knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard (Prysak v R L Polk). MCL 423.452 gives employers good-faith immunity for job-performance references.
Related Michigan pages
- Grand Rapids Civil Litigation Attorney
- Grand Rapids Fraud and Misrepresentation Attorney
- Consumer protection claims
- Grand Rapids Unjust Enrichment and Promissory Estoppel Attorney
- First Amendment and government retaliation
If a false statement is aimed at a company, I handle that dispute for either side.
I handle defamation claims and defenses in Michigan for either side. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.