This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case is examined on its own facts, and every cause of action has its own limitation period.
"Watch out for the contractor from the building opposite. He took a deposit from three residents and vanished. A thief." The message was written in the neighbourhood WhatsApp group, 140 members, at nine in the evening. By morning it had been deleted, and a screenshot of it had already been sent on. The Defamation Law asks three questions of that message, in a fixed order: whether what was written is defamation, whether it was published, and whether the writer has a defence. The third is most of the case, and it also decides whether the demand letter the writer received is worth the sum written in it.
The first question: what the message is liable to cause
Section 1 of the Law defines defamation by what a publication is "liable" to cause: to humiliate a person in the eyes of others or make them a target of hatred, contempt or ridicule, to degrade them for acts or traits attributed to them, or to harm them in their office, business or profession. The writer's intention is not part of the definition. Nor is damage: the test is what the words are liable to do, and the person defamed does not have to show that a customer cancelled. A "person" for this section includes a corporation, so a contracting company sues in its own name. No name is needed either. Under section 3, defamation may be implied from the publication itself or from external circumstances, and in a group covering one street "the contractor from the building opposite" is identified without a name.
The second question: who it reached
Section 2 defines publication as oral, written, printed, drawn, sounded or made by any other means. WhatsApp is not mentioned, and does not need to be. The Law treats words as published when they were intended for someone other than the person defamed and reached that person or another, and also when they were written in a way that, in the circumstances, was liable to reach such a person. Section 7 provides that publication to one or more persons other than the person defamed is a civil wrong. A private message to the contractor himself does not meet the definition. A group of 140 certainly does, and deleting it an hour later does not change what had already arrived.
When the words were untrue, the Law asks the writer two questions: whether they believed them, and what they did to check before pressing send.
The third question: what the writer has to say
Section 13 lists publications that give rise to no claim at all, among them what was said in the Knesset or in a cabinet meeting, what a party or witness said in the course of court proceedings, and a publication the publisher was required by law to make. A message in a neighbourhood group is not on that list. Section 14 is the defence of truth, and it has two conditions that must be met together: that what was published was true, and that there was a public interest in publishing it. A side detail that was not proved, and causes no real harm, does not defeat the defence. The difficulty in our message is its last word: proving that a deposit was taken and not returned is one thing, and proving "a thief" is another. Section 15 is the defence of good faith, and it stands only if the writer published in one of the twelve circumstances the section lists, among them a legal, moral or social duty towards the people the publication was addressed to, protection of a legitimate personal interest of the writer or the readers, an opinion on the conduct of the person defamed in connection with a public matter, and a complaint to the authority competent to receive it. On the complaint the Law adds an express proviso: the protection covers the complaint itself, and does not extend to any other publication of the fact it was filed or of its content. Someone who complained to the police and then wrote about it in the group runs into that proviso. Section 16 adds two presumptions. A writer who published in one of those circumstances and did not go beyond what was reasonable is presumed to have acted in good faith. A writer who published something untrue and did not believe it, or took no reasonable steps before publishing to check it, is presumed not to have. "Three residents" is therefore the question: who they are, whether the writer spoke to them before writing, and whether messages of that remain.
Statutory damages without proof of harm, and what reduces them
Section 7A allows the court to order the defendant to pay compensation without proof of damage. The figure printed in the Law is up to 50,000 shekels, and up to double that where it was proved that the publication was made with intent to harm. Both figures are linked to the consumer price index from the index of September 1998 and are updated monthly, so today's ceiling is higher than the number printed in the statute. The section says "may", and the court sets the sum within the range according to the circumstances. Nobody receives such compensation more than once for the same defamation. Section 19 lists four mitigating factors the court may credit to the defendant. Repetition of what had already been said, naming the source, and that is a mitigating factor, not a defence, for whoever forwarded the screenshot on as well. A belief that the words were true. No intention towards the person defamed. And an apology, correction or denial. On the apology the Law adds a condition: it counts only if it was published in the place, to the extent and in the manner in which the defamation was published, and was unqualified. Alongside compensation the court may order, under section 9, publication of a correction or denial, or of the judgment, at the defendant's expense.
You received a letter about a message you wrote
The demand letters that reach our firm from this side usually ask for deletion, an apology in the group, and a sum. The sum in the letter is the other side's demand, and the ceiling in the Law is a ceiling. A writer who paid a deposit himself and has a receipt stands on a legitimate personal interest under section 15, and faces the truth defence of section 14. A writer who only heard is asked the section 16 question: from whom, and what did he check. And after the letter, an apology or correction in the group itself, without qualification, is what section 19 lists.
Seven years, and the Magistrates' Court
The Limitation Law sets seven years for a claim of this kind, from the day the cause of action arose, that is, the day of publication. Where the facts making up the cause of action were unknown to the claimant for reasons beyond their control, which reasonable care could not have prevented, the period starts on the day those facts became known. The 2024 amendment to the Law excludes from the count the period between 7 October 2023 and 6 April 2024, for claims whose period had not ended before the amendment. A civil claim for up to 2.5 million shekels is heard in the Magistrates' Court.
What was known at nine in the evening?
At our firm the examination starts with the screenshot itself: the date and time, the group's name and how many members it has, and who wrote what. Then the exchange that preceded the message, if there was one, and the demand letter together with the reply it received. Our firm represents both people who were defamed and people who wrote, and from both sides the first question is the same: what did the writer know at nine in the evening, before pressing send.