Online Defamation: The General Legal Picture
Online defamation fits, independently of the platform, into one and the same legal frame: social network, forum, news site or blog — what matters is how the information is disseminated and who answers for it. Georgian law gives two core norms here: the protection of personal non-property rights, and the tort of disseminating damaging information. Claims built on these two operate regardless of the type of content and the platform.
Dissemination and Publicising: The Core of the Tort
The basis of compensation for online defamation is Article 993 of the Civil Code: a person who intentionally or negligently disseminates or publicises facts damaging to another person's property must compensate the damage arising therefrom, where these facts are evidently incorrect. In the online environment the concept of dissemination is broad: a post, a repost, sharing a link and even a comment may qualify as dissemination, because the information reaches a new audience. At the same time, no obligation to compensate arises for statements that serve the protection of lawful public interests — this exception is the boundary of public discussion.
Cessation and Refutation: The Instruments of Personal Rights
The instruments of early reaction precede compensation and lie in Article 18 of the Civil Code. A person has the right, through the court, to protect honour, dignity, the secrecy of private life, personal inviolability or business reputation from infringement. A demand of cessation of the infringement is addressed directly to the infringer, and where the infringing information has been disseminated through mass-information means, its refutation must likewise occur through those same means. The refutation instrument is especially important online: the same audience that saw the infringing content must see the correcting information. Moreover, a person whose honour and dignity have been infringed by information published in mass-information means has the right to publish response information in the same means (Article 18).
The Boundary of Abuse of Right
The rights of a defamation victim also have a boundary. Under Article 115 of the Civil Code, a civil right must be exercised lawfully, and it is inadmissible to exercise a right solely with the purpose of harming another. In online reality this means that applying to court and threats cannot become an instrument for suppressing criticism: if demands are evidently used to silence lawful criticism, such conduct will be assessed as abuse of right.
Moral Damage and the General Frame
In the matter of compensation the general tort frame also operates: a person who, by an unlawful, intentional or negligent act, causes damage to another, is obliged to compensate it. In case of culpable infringement a person may also demand compensation for non-pecuniary, moral damage, claimed independently of the pecuniary; monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage may be demanded only in cases precisely defined by law, in the form of reasonable and fair compensation (Article 413). In online defamation, substantiating moral damage is often built on evidence of the scale of dissemination and the audience.
The evidentiary work in online defamation is especially detailed. The first step is fixation of the content: a full screenshot or archival record with the page address, the publication date and the author's identification data. The second step is the trail of dissemination: reposts, comments, visibility in search, everything that shows the audience the scale. The third step is the trail of damage: connected discontinued relationships, refused clients, changed income. These three layers together build the picture the court sees on assessment. At the level of strategy, the main choice is which demand to present when: the demand of cessation and refutation works immediately and stops further damage, while the compensation claim builds on accumulated damage and requires more preparation.
Two realities make online cases special. First, the life of the content continues after its deletion, because reposts and archived copies remain accessible, and therefore the refutation instrument is often more important than mere removal. Second, the identification of the author sometimes requires technical steps, since with anonymous accounts establishing the responsible person is a separate task. Both realities show that the legal response must be fully planned rather than impulsive, because each step continues the chain of subsequent demands.
What is the basis of compensation?
Intentionally or negligently disseminated evidently incorrect facts cause damage and generate compensation (Article 993).
How does refutation work?
Information disseminated through mass-information means is refuted through the same means (Article 18).
Where is the boundary of demands?
A right may not be exercised solely to harm another — suppressing criticism is abuse of right (Article 115).
How is moral damage claimed?
In case of culpable infringement it is claimed independently of the pecuniary, as reasonable and fair compensation (Article 413).
How We Help on Legal.ge
Our team guides online defamation cases from the very first day: we fix the content and its author, structure demands of cessation and refutation, assess pecuniary and moral damage and, where necessary, present the compensation claim in court. Contact Legal.ge so that an online infringement receives a fast and complete legal response.