[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant made a false and defamatory statement;
2. Defendant published (written or orally) to a third party;
3. Defendant made the defamatory statement with the requisite intent (negligence or malice); and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Defendant made a false and defamatory statement;
2. Defendant published (written or orally) to a third party;
3. Defendant made the defamatory statement with the requisite intent (negligence or malice); and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages.

Libel is a written defamatory statement. See Hay v. Independent Newspapers, Inc., 450 So.2d 293, 294-295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Slander is a spoken defamatory statement. See Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). A defamation claim against a private person requires negligence. See Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v Ane, 423 So.2d 376, 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974). A defamation claim against a public figure requires publication with actual malice and in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. See Seropian v. Forman, 652 So.2d 490, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964).

Injurious Falsehood is a cause of action akin to defamation. See Salit v. Ruden, McCloskey, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So.2d 381, 386-387, n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 623A-652 (1977).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008).

First District: Linafelt v. Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc., 745 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Thomas v. Jacksonville Television, Inc., 699 So. 2d 800, 803-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Second District: Mishiyev v. Davis, 402 So. 3d 443, 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Bass v. Rivera, 826 So.2d 534, 534 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002).

Third District: Hullick v. Gibraltar Private Bank & Tr. Co., 279 So.3d 809, 812 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Cousins v. Post-Newsweek Stations Florida, Inc., 275 So.3d 674, 681 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Fourth District: Mastandrea v. Snow, 333 So.3d 326, 328 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2022); Lowery v. McBee, 322 So.3d 110, 114 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2021); Hoch v. Loren, 273 So.3d 56, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Fifth District: Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 710 So.2d 618, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 718 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1998).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Jacoby v. Cable News Network, Inc., 2021 WL 5858569, *3 (11^th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021); Parekh v. CBS Corp., 820 F. App’x 827, 833 (11th Cir. 2020); Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254, 1262 (11th Cir. DCA 2018).

Southern District: Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc., 557 F.Supp.3d 1251, 1257 (S.D. Fla. 2021);  Sirer v. Aksoy, 2021 WL 4952610, *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2021); Bongino v. Daily Beast Co., LLC, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Rubinson v. Rubinson, 474 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2020).

Middle District: Safe Haven Baby Boxes v. A Safe Haven for Newborns Gloria M. Siverio Found., No. 2:24-CV-00051-JLB-KCD, 2025 WL 660772, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2025); Skypoint Advisors, LLC. v. 3 Amigos Productions LLC., 2021 WL 6118097, *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2021); Starline Media, Inc. v. Star Status Grp., 2021 WL 6125566, *8 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2021); LeVeille v. Upchurch, 2021 WL 6125470, *9 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2021).

Northern District: Johnson v. Darnell, No. 1:17-CV-87-MW-GRJ, 2018 WL 3672759, at *9 (N.D. Fla. July 13, 2018); Williams v. Capella Univ., No. 1:16–cv–325–MW–GRJ, 2016 WL 7733974, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2016).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558, 580(B) (1965)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Defamation Slander

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (two years); See Watkins v. Dejesus, 786 Fed.Appx. 217, 219 (11th Cir. 2019). 

(3) Truth is an affirmative to defamation claims. When combined with good motive, truth is a complete defense. Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So.2d 170, 180 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000); Friedman v. Schiano, 777 Fed.Appx. 324, 334 n. 16 (11th Cir. 2019); see also Art. I, § 4, Fla. Const.

(4) Statements made during a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged provided that such statements are related to the proceeding’s subject matter. See Levin, Middlebrooks v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 1994) (absolute privilege extends to parties, witnesses counsel and judges); Rolle v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., 212 So.3d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Grippa v. Rubin, 133 F.4th 1186, 1193-94 (11th Cir. 2025).

(5) Absolute privilege extends to statements made during labor grievance proceedings provided that such statements are related to the proceeding’s subject matter. See Hope v. Nat. Alliance, Jacksonville 320, 649 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

(6) Public officialsare entitled to absolute immunity for all statements made within the scope of the officer’s duties, regardless of how false or malicious or badly motivated the statements. Hauser v. Urchisin, 231 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 1970); Quintero v. Diaz, 300 So.3d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Washington v. Miami-Dade Cty., No. 19-20092-CIV-MORENO, 2019 WL 7049931, at *3 (S.D. Fla. December 23, 2019).

(7) Qualified privilege protects defamatory statements made by private individuals to the police or the state’s attorney prior to the institution of criminal charges. Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65, 69 (Fla. 1992). However, the privilege can be overcome by establishing that the individual acted with express malice in making the defamatory statements. Id; see also Lozada v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 702 Fed.Appx. 904, 911 (11th Cir. 2017).

(8) Qualified privilege protects defamatory statements that are published by a speaker in good faith, pursuant to a duty or special interest, and such privilege is not abused. Nodar v. Galdbreath, 462 So.2d 803, 809 (Fla. 1984).

(9) Statements of pure opinion based on known facts do not give rise to defamation claims. See Miami Child’s World, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 669 So.2d 336, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Turner v. Wells, 198 F.Supp.3d 1355, 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2016), aff’d,  879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018).

(10) Minor inconsistencies in news reports are not actionable provided that report is substantially true and inaccuracies did not result from deliberate falsification or awareness of probable falsity. Newton v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 447 So.2d 906, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

(11) Employers who disclose information about former employees are immune from civil liability if the communication is made in good faith, and such presumption is not rebutted by showing that information “knowingly false or deliberately misleading, was rendered with malicious purpose, or violated any civil right of the former employee protected under chapter 760’’. § 768.095, Fla. Stat.

(12) Slander is actionable per se without a showing of special damages if it imputes to another: a criminal offense amounting to a felony; a presently existing venereal or other loathsome and communicable disease; conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession, or office; or the other being a woman, acts of unchastity. Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 22 F.Supp.2d 1240, 1247 (S.D. Fla. 2014).

(13) § 770.01, Fla. Stat., requires five (5) days notice to a defendant prior to filing a libel suit. see Mishiyev v. Davis, 402 So. 3d 443, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

(14) Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Section 768.295, Fla. Stat.) protects the exercise of the right of “free speech in connection with public issues,” provides that “[i]t is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues,” and affords “[a] person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of [Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute].” Section 768.295(1) and (4), Fla. Stat.  See also Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 264 So.3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)(detailing the substantive and procedural aspects of Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Statute).

[/MM_Access_Decision]