Cease and Desist Letter for Defamation: Template

Defamation Cease and Desist Overview

A defamation cease and desist letter is a formal written demand that someone stop making false statements damaging your reputation, and provide written assurance they will not continue. This template is written from the perspective of a Minnesota business lawyer on behalf of a client whose character has been defamed. It can be modified for claims involving libel or slander. Click this link for other types of cease and desist letters.

Because laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, this cease and desist letter should not be used without first consulting with an attorney. Cease and desist letters are generally more effective when sent by an attorney.

What Is Defamation of Character?

Defamation of character is a false statement about you, communicated to someone other than you, that harms your reputation in the community. The Minnesota Supreme Court states the common-law rule this way: a plaintiff “must prove that the defendant made: (a) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff; (b) in [an] unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Minn. 2019). Two consequences follow that most people do not expect. A false, reputation-harming statement made only to you, with no one else hearing or reading it, is not defamation at all, because the statement must be “communicated to someone other than the plaintiff.” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. 1980). And privileges defeat a claim even when the statement is false and harmful: an absolute privilege bars liability for even “intentionally false statements, coupled with malice,” Minke v. City of Minneapolis, 845 N.W.2d 179, 182 (Minn. 2014), while a qualified privilege “is overcome if the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant made the statement with malice,” Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 873.

Defamation takes two forms, divided by how the statement is communicated:

• Libel: Defamation by written words published. An action for libel may be maintained “where the written words published are calculated to expose one to public contempt, hatred, or ridicule, without an allegation of special damages, whether or not the words used impute a crime or public offense.” Larson v. R. B. Wrigley Co., 183 Minn. 28, 29, 235 N.W. 393 (1931).
• Slander: Spoken false statements, including statements made in conversation, during meetings, or over the phone. The Minnesota Supreme Court has described such a claim as one “to recover damages for slander or defamation by spoken words,” in contrast to libel, which rests on “written words published.” Larson, 183 Minn. at 29.

The Elements You Must Prove

To establish a defamation claim in Minnesota, you must prove that the statement was communicated to someone other than you, that the statement is false, that it tends to harm your reputation and lower you in the estimation of the community, and that the person who received it reasonably understood it to refer to you specifically. McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 729-30 (Minn. 2013). The fourth element is the one demand letters most often skip: a statement no reader would reasonably connect to you does not support a claim. McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 729-30.

Whether the words can carry a defamatory meaning at all is decided by the judge as a matter of law, measured by how an ordinary person would understand “the language used in the light of surrounding circumstances,” with the words “construed as a whole without taking any word or phrase out of context.” McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 731-32. That is why a demand built on one sentence lifted out of a longer post often fails.

Fault matters too, though Minnesota does not list it as a fifth element. A public official or public figure must prove actual malice. A private plaintiff must prove actual malice to recover presumed damages when the statement involves a matter of public concern. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 873, 878-79. Minnesota also requires a private plaintiff to prove that the speaker “knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the defamatory statement was false,” Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 367 N.W.2d 476, 491 (Minn. 1985), and the Minnesota Supreme Court has expressly reserved “for another day the question of whether Jadwin requires private plaintiffs to prove negligence in all defamation cases, or whether that requirement is limited to defamation cases that involve matters of public concern,” Maethner, 929 N.W.2d 868.

Defamation Per Se

Minnesota treats certain false statements as defamatory per se, meaning harm to reputation is presumed: false accusations of committing a crime and false statements about a person’s business, trade, or professional conduct, Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 875, along with imputations of a loathsome disease or of unchastity, Anderson v. Kammeier, 262 N.W.2d 366, 372 (Minn. 1977); accord Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153, 158 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (also treating statements that impute serious sexual misconduct as per se). For the business category the words “must be peculiarly harmful to the person in his business,” and “[g]eneral disparagement is insufficient.” Anderson, 262 N.W.2d at 372.

Minnesota treats these statements as “actionable without any proof of actual damages,” Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn. 1980), but that presumption is no longer unqualified. The Minnesota Supreme Court has narrowed it on First Amendment grounds, holding that “a private plaintiff may not recover presumed damages for defamatory statements involving a matter of public concern unless the plaintiff can establish actual malice.” Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 878-79. If the speech is on a matter of public concern and a private plaintiff has neither evidence of actual harm to reputation nor a showing of actual malice, the defamation claim fails as a matter of law. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 878-79.

The limit reaches ordinary individuals, not only the press. The Minnesota Supreme Court applied it to a Facebook post accusing the plaintiff by name of sexual assault, holding the post involved a matter of public concern and that the plaintiff had to show actual malice before recovering presumed damages. Johnson v. Freborg, 995 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 2023).

Defamation vs. Slander vs. Libel

These terms are often confused. Defamation is the broad legal category. Slander and libel are its two types:

• Defamation = a false statement about you, published to someone else without privilege, that harms your reputation in the community. A false statement said only to you, with no one else hearing or reading it, is not defamation. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 873
• Slander = spoken defamation. Larson, 183 Minn. at 29
• Libel = defamation in written or printed form. Larson, 183 Minn. at 29

Modern Minnesota decisions state the reputational-harm prerequisite and the defamatory-per-se framework in terms of defamation generally, without separating written from spoken publication, Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 873, 875. The older common-law rule treated libel as actionable without an allegation of special damages, Larson, 183 Minn. at 29. You must prove actual harm to reputation unless the statement falsely accuses you of a crime or disparages your business, trade, or professional conduct, and even then a private plaintiff may not recover presumed damages for speech on a matter of public concern without proving actual malice. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 875, 878-79. Minnesota courts apply that same framework to an online statement such as a Facebook post, Johnson v. Freborg, 995 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 2023), which did not classify the statement as libel. A Google review has also been litigated as a defamation action, J&D Dental v. Hou, No. A24-2046 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2025), where the court decided only whether the anti-SLAPP act covered the suit, expressed no opinion on the merits of the defamation claims, and did not classify the reviews as libel.

One Minnesota rule is still keyed to the written form, and it restricts a plaintiff rather than helping one: in an action for a libel published in a newspaper, the plaintiff “shall recover no more than special damages, unless a retraction be demanded and refused.” Minn. Stat. § 548.06. The deadline is the same either way, because Minn. Stat. § 541.07(1) gives libel and slander a shared two-year period. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01, a civil action is commenced against each defendant when the summons is served on that defendant, at the date of signing a waiver of service under Rule 4.05, or when the summons is delivered for service to the sheriff in the county where the defendant resides, and that delivery is ineffectual unless within 60 days thereafter the summons is actually served on that defendant or the first publication of it is made. If the defamatory statements in your situation were spoken, our slander cease and desist template may be more appropriate.

When to Send a Defamation Cease and Desist Letter

Send a defamation cease and desist letter when someone has made false statements about you that are causing real, ongoing harm, and you want to put them on notice before escalating to litigation. Common scenarios include:

• Negative online reviews: False statements of fact posted on review sites, Google, or social media. Note that a substantially true statement is not actionable, and a statement that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating a fact and cannot be proven true or false is protected opinion, even when unfavorable. McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 730, 733 (Minn. 2013).
• Competitor disparagement: A business competitor spreads false information about your products, services, or business practices to gain a competitive advantage.
• Former employee statements: A former employee makes false claims about your business, management practices, or workplace conditions.
• Social media posts: False accusations or rumors published on platforms like Facebook, X (Twitter), LinkedIn, or Instagram. If the conduct rises to targeted harassment, a cyberbullying and harassment cease and desist may also be appropriate.

Before sending a defamation cease and desist letter, consider the risks of sending a cease and desist. In some situations, sending a C&D can draw more attention to the statements you want to suppress, what is sometimes called the Streisand effect.

The Anti-SLAPP Risk Since 2024

Minnesota replaced its prior anti-SLAPP statute in 2024 with the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 554.07 to 554.19, enacted by 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 18. A person sued over speech on a matter of public concern may file a special motion for expedited relief to dismiss within 60 days of service, or at a later time on a showing of good cause, Minn. Stat. § 554.09. Three of the act’s exclusions, covering a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services, a common law fraud claim, and a claim under the consumer protection provisions of chapters 325F and 325G, are themselves overridden for “a legal action against a person related to the communication, gathering, receiving, posting, or processing of consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses,” Minn. Stat. § 554.08, but whether a particular review is speech on a matter of public concern is decided case by case on the totality of the circumstances, taking into account the content, form, and context of the speech, J&D Dental v. Hou, No. A24-2046 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2025). Discovery is stayed while that motion is pending, Minn. Stat. § 554.10, and if the person who filed the motion prevails, the court “shall award court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and reasonable litigation expenses related to the motion,” Minn. Stat. § 554.16. That reverses the cost exposure a demand letter’s threat of “costs and disbursements” assumes: if you sue over a covered review and lose the motion, you pay the reviewer’s fees. Weigh that before the letter goes out.

What Defamation Damages Cover

Special damages compensate a proven financial loss, and you may recover them only by proving that the defamatory publication was “the legal cause of any actual and special pecuniary loss,” meaning “a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.” Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153, 160 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). A lost job or a lost expectation of employment is special harm of that kind, “the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value,” rather than a separate category of damages. Longbehn, 727 N.W.2d at 160. Special harm reaches both a benefit you already had and one you never got: “a loss of presently existing advantage, as a discharge from employment,” and “a failure to realize a reasonable expectation of gain, as a denial of employment which, but for the currency of the slander, the plaintiff would have received,” and you need not have been legally entitled to the benefit denied. Stuempges, 297 N.W.2d at 258-59.

General damages compensate harm to reputation, and Minnesota presumes them when the statement is defamatory per se, subject to the public-concern limit described above. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 875, 878-79. Emotional distress is not a freestanding category. Minnesota allows emotional-harm damages “only as ‘parasitic’ damages,” which “are insufficient in themselves to make the slander actionable, but once the cause of action is made out without them, they may be tacked on as ‘parasitic’ to it.” Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 874-75. Evidence of who saw the statement and what those people now think is what carries a claim, so gather it early.

Punitive damages are possible, and that phrase alone does not get you there. Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1(a), allows them “only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others,” and subdivision 1(b) defines that as knowledge of, or intentional disregard of, facts creating a high probability of injury plus a deliberate decision to act anyway. A merely careless or merely false statement does not reach it. Subdivision 3 lists the factors that measure any award, three of which describe exactly what a recipient does after a demand letter arrives: how long the statements stay up, whether the speaker concealed them, and how the speaker behaved once told. Subdivision 4 lets either party require the jury to decide compensatory damages first, with the defendant’s finances excluded from that phase.

There is also a pleading gate. Under Minn. Stat. § 549.191, “[u]pon commencement of a civil action, the complaint must not seek punitive damages.” The plaintiff files the suit first, then moves to amend the pleadings, supports the motion with affidavits showing the factual basis, and the court grants leave only “if the court finds prima facie evidence in support of the motion.” Where the statement concerns a matter of public concern, the First Amendment bars presumed and punitive damages unless liability rests on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349 (1974), a limit that does not apply to statements on matters of purely private concern, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761 (1985).

If your business is the plaintiff, two claims with different burdens often travel together. “To recover in libel, a corporation must show that defendant’s written statements directly tended to affect the credit, property or business of the corporate plaintiff,” while a plaintiff “may not recover for product disparagement unless plaintiff is able to prove special damages in the form of pecuniary loss directly attributable to defendant’s false statements.” Advanced Training Systems, Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co., 352 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1984).

Defenses to Defamation

Knowing the likely defenses strengthens your position before you send a cease and desist letter, and helps you avoid sending one that the recipient can easily deflect. If you are considering sending a defamation cease and desist letter, you should be aware that the recipient may raise several legal defenses.

Truth

Truth is a complete defense, and “true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.” McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 730. That standard disposed of three of the six statements in McKee. The word “defense” also hides where the burden sits: falsity is an element of your own case, because “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity in order to establish a successful defamation claim.” McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 730. When the parties genuinely dispute the facts, truth or falsity is ordinarily a question for the jury. McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 730.

Opinion

Statements of pure opinion are protected, but the label does no work. A statement is pure opinion only when it “cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact and it cannot be proven true or false,” which is why the Minnesota Supreme Court held that calling a doctor “a real tool” was not actionable while the accompanying claim that a nurse had actually said it “is one of fact because whether a nurse actually made the statement to Laurion is an assertion that can be proven true or false.” McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 733. The United States Supreme Court declined “to create a wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled ‘opinion,’” explaining that “[s]imply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, ‘In my opinion Jones is a liar,’ can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, ‘Jones is a liar.’” Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990).

Privilege

Minnesota has two privileges, not one, and each setting is bounded differently. Absolute privilege “bars liability for even ‘intentionally false statements, coupled with malice,’” while qualified privilege bars liability “only if the ‘defamatory statements are publicized in good faith and without malice.’” Minke v. City of Minneapolis, 845 N.W.2d 179, 182 (Minn. 2014).

The judicial-proceedings privilege is absolute only where the statement is “(1) made by a judge, judicial officer, attorney, or witness; (2) made at a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding; and (3) . . . relevant to the subject matter of the litigation,” and the person claiming it bears the burden of proof. Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302, 306 (Minn. 2007). The privilege “extends to statements published prior to the judicial proceeding, but in order for the privilege to apply, such statements must have some relation to the judicial proceeding,” and absolute privilege “is not designed to provide blanket protection for any statement made within the course of litigation.” Mahoney & Hagberg, 729 N.W.2d at 306, 308. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has also held that “attorney statements to the media generally do not fall within the scope of the judicial-proceedings privilege.” Cook v. Trimble, No. A24-1486 (Minn. Ct. App. May 5, 2025). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and heard en banc oral argument on January 7, 2026. No decision had issued as of September 2026, so I recommend checking the current status of that appeal before relying on the court of appeals holding.

The absolute legislative privilege comes from Minn. Const. art. IV, § 10, which provides that “[f]or any speech or debate in either house they shall not be questioned in any other place,” and it reaches only members of the State Senate and House. City councils, county boards, and watershed district boards have only a qualified privilege. Zutz v. Nelson, 788 N.W.2d 58, 60, 62 (Minn. 2010). Among executive officials, top-level officers have an absolute privilege for statements made in the course of their duties while lower-level officers generally do not, and the test is functional rather than a matter of title: the Minnesota Supreme Court extended absolute privilege to a state trooper’s arrest report and “declined to extend absolute privilege to statements to the press made by the same state trooper.” Minke, 845 N.W.2d at 182-84.

Public Figure Status

A public official or public figure “may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 342; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964). Reckless disregard is subjective, not a carelessness test: “reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing,” and there must be evidence “that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968). Actual malice is also not ill will. Minnesota courts keep constitutional actual malice separate from common-law malice, so proof that the speaker disliked you does not satisfy the standard. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 873.

Nationwide fame is the rare route into that burden. The common one is a single controversy: a person “voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 351. Minnesota resolves that question with three factors: “(1) whether a public controversy existed; (2) whether the plaintiff played a meaningful role in the controversy; and (3) whether the allegedly defamatory statement related to the controversy.” Chafoulias v. Peterson, 668 N.W.2d 642, 651 (Minn. 2003). A business owner drawn into a local dispute can land under the higher burden for that dispute alone.

None of this protection is limited to the press. “Minnesota affords to nonmedia defendants the same first amendment protection for criticism of public officials that it grants to the mass media.” Britton v. Koep, 470 N.W.2d 518, 521 (Minn. 1991). The recipient of a defamation demand is usually an individual reviewer or a former employee, and that recipient gets the same protection a newspaper would.

Understanding these defenses helps you evaluate the strength of your position before sending a cease and desist letter. For more on protecting your interests, see Insurance Coverage for Business Defamation Claims.

Free Cease and Desist Letter Template Download:

Download the defamation cease and desist (Word)

CEASE AND DESIST

[DATE]

By Certified Mail

Ms. Jane Doe [STREET ADDRESS] [CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]

Dear Ms. Doe:

This law firm represents [CLIENT NAME]. If you are represented by legal counsel, please direct this letter to your attorney immediately and have your attorney notify us of such representation.

You are hereby directed to

CEASE AND DESIST ALL DEFAMATION OF [CLIENT NAME]‘S CHARACTER AND REPUTATION.

[CLIENT NAME] is an educated, respected professional in the community. She has spent years serving the community in her profession and building a positive reputation. [CLIENT NAME] has learned that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory rumors about her.

Under Minnesota law, a plaintiff pursuing a defamation claim must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff, in an unprivileged publication to a third party, that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation in the community. Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Minn. 2019). Minnesota states the elements of a defamation claim as follows: a plaintiff must prove that

(1) the defamatory statement was “communicated to someone other than the plaintiff”; (2) the statement is false; (3) the statement tends to “harm the plaintiff’s reputation and to lower [the plaintiff] in the estimation of the community”; and (4) “the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual.”

McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 729-30 (Minn. 2013).

Your defamatory statements involved [CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR DESCRIPTION OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS].

Accordingly, we demand that you (A) immediately cease and desist your defamation of [CLIENT NAME] and (B) provide us with prompt written assurance within ten (10) days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of [CLIENT NAME]’s character and reputation.

If you do not comply with this cease and desist demand within this time period, [CLIENT NAME] may bring a defamation action seeking money damages and an injunction. The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld an injunction “limited as it is to material found either libelous or disparaging after a full jury trial.” Advanced Training Systems, Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co., 352 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 1984). In the event you fail to meet this demand, please be advised that [CLIENT NAME] has asked us to communicate to you that she will pursue the legal remedies available to her, including money damages, an application for injunctive relief, and an order that you pay her costs and disbursements. Your liability and exposure under such legal action could be considerable.

Before taking these steps, however, my client wished to give you one opportunity to stop publishing these false and defamatory statements by complying with this demand within ten (10) days. Accordingly, please sign and return the attached Defamation Settlement Agreement within ten (10) days to

[FIRM NAME] [FIRM ADDRESS] [FIRM CITY, STATE, ZIP]

I recommend that you consult with an attorney regarding this matter. If you or your attorney have any questions, please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

[NAME]

Three Notes for Anyone Using This Template

Do not call the conduct illegal. Defamation in Minnesota is a civil claim for damages. Only a communication made “with knowledge of its false and defamatory character” can be criminal, under Minn. Stat. § 609.765, subd. 2, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals held the pre-2016 version of that statute “unconstitutionally overbroad and in violation of First Amendment protections and . . . not susceptible to a narrowing construction,” reversing the conviction. State v. Turner, 864 N.W.2d 204 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). The legislature responded by adding the falsity elements and deleting the old justification for true statements communicated “with good motives and for justifiable ends,” which the new falsity element made unnecessary, 2016 Minn. Laws ch. 126, § 8, and no Minnesota appellate court has ruled on whether the amended statute survives First Amendment scrutiny. The statute also carries its own justifications in subdivision 3, covering an absolutely privileged communication, fair comment made in good faith on matters of public concern, a fair and true report of judicial or other official proceedings, and a communication between people sharing an interest or duty in the subject. Subdivision 4 bars conviction on an oral statement “except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty.” Describe the conduct instead of labeling it a crime.

Do not claim a present entitlement to an injunction. Minnesota courts enjoin defamatory statements only after an adversary proceeding has found those specific statements false. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a permanent injunction “limited as it is to material found either libelous or disparaging after a full jury trial,” noting that other courts have allowed “the suppression of libel, so long as the suppression is limited to the precise statements found libelous after a full and fair adversary proceeding.” Advanced Training Systems, Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co., 352 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 1984). A letter can say you will ask a court for an injunction. The same court described prior restraint as “judicial suppression, prior to publication, of expression alleged to be ‘dangerous’ or ‘defamatory.’” Advanced Training Systems, 352 N.W.2d at 11.

Know what “costs and disbursements” recovers. Statutory costs are a fixed $200 under Minn. Stat. § 549.02, subd. 1, plus “reasonable disbursements paid or incurred” under Minn. Stat. § 549.04, subd. 1, with another $300 on a judgment on the merits on appeal. Neither Minn. Stat. § 549.02, subd. 1, nor Minn. Stat. § 549.04, subd. 1, lists attorney fees among the amounts it allows. The allowance runs to whichever side prevails, Minn. Stat. § 549.02, subd. 1, and Minn. Stat. § 549.04, subd. 1, so a plaintiff whose claim fails owes the defendant the same.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue for defamation without a cease and desist letter?

Yes. No Minnesota statute or court rule requires a cease and desist letter before a defamation lawsuit is filed, because a civil action is commenced when the summons is served on the defendant. Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01. Two pre-suit notices do carry legal consequences. In an action for a libel published in a newspaper, the plaintiff “shall recover no more than special damages, unless a retraction be demanded and refused,” Minn. Stat. § 548.06, and that notice goes to the publisher, specifies the statements claimed to be libelous, requests that they be withdrawn, and is alleged in the complaint along with the failure to retract. And a defamation claim against a municipality, or against a municipal employee acting within the scope of employment, requires a notice of claim presented to the governing body within 180 days after the loss is discovered. Minn. Stat. § 466.05, subd. 1. See Should You Send a Cease and Desist Before Starting a Lawsuit?

How does a newspaper retraction demand work?

In an action for newspaper libel, the statute does not order the publisher to do anything; it conditions your recovery on whether a conforming retraction runs within one week after service of your notice. Minn. Stat. § 548.06. A retraction counts only if it runs “on the same page and in the same type and the statement headed in 18-point type or larger ‘RETRACTION,’ as were the statements complained of, in a regular issue thereof published within one week after such service.” Minn. Stat. § 548.06.

What if the defamatory statement is on social media?

Minnesota courts analyze online statements under the general defamation framework, so the questions are the same ones asked of any other statement: falsity, publication, harm to reputation, and whether the speech involves a matter of public concern. You can send a cease and desist letter to the person who posted the statement, and you may also report the content to the platform for removal. Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” so the platform hosting the post is generally not liable for it while the author remains liable and is the right recipient of your letter. Two other subsections matter in practice. A platform faces no liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be . . . objectionable,” so a takedown request is worth making even though a suit against the platform is not. And the statute preempts inconsistent state law: “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” If the conduct involves repeated targeted harassment, see our guide on cyberbullying and harassment cease and desist letters.

Is a negative online review defamation?

Not necessarily. A statement is protected pure opinion only when it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating a fact and cannot be proven true or false. McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 733 (Minn. 2013). Even a provably false factual assertion in a review is not actionable unless it is capable of conveying a defamatory meaning: the Minnesota Supreme Court held one statement not actionable “because the statement is incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning.” McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 730, 733-34 (Minn. 2013). The court held that none of the six challenged statements in that case was actionable, which is a realistic expectation to carry into any decision about suing over a review. Remember also that the burden of proving falsity is yours, not the reviewer’s, and that a suit over a covered review exposes you to the fee shifting described above.

What damages can I recover for defamation?

You may recover special damages for proven pecuniary loss, such as a job lost or a job never obtained, on proof that the statement was a substantial factor in bringing the loss about. Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153, 160 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). You may recover general damages for harm to reputation, which Minnesota presumes when the statement is defamatory per se, so a plaintiff may recover without proof that the publication caused actual harm, unless the statements involve a matter of public concern, in which case actual malice must be shown. Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868, 875, 878-79 (Minn. 2019). That presumption carries a constitutional limit: “a private plaintiff may not recover presumed damages for defamatory statements involving a matter of public concern unless the plaintiff can establish actual malice.” Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868, 878-79 (Minn. 2019). The Minnesota Supreme Court applied that limit to a public Facebook post accusing the plaintiff of sexual assault. Johnson v. Freborg, 995 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 2023). Emotional distress is recoverable only as a parasitic element, insufficient by itself to make the claim actionable but able to be added once the claim is made out without it. Maethner, 929 N.W.2d at 874-75. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others under Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1, and cannot be pleaded in the original complaint, Minn. Stat. § 549.191.

Do I have to obey a cease and desist letter I receive?

A cease and desist letter is a private demand rather than a court order. Minnesota treats “disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” as constructive contempt, Minn. Stat. § 588.01, subd. 3(3), and an injunction “is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order,” Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.04. Paper titled “cease and desist” that arrives from a state agency is a different document: an order from the commissioner of commerce remains in effect until modified or vacated, and “[i]f no hearing is requested within 30 days of service of the order, the cease and desist order will become permanent.” Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subd. 5a. Ignoring a private letter carries its own risk, because it establishes that you had notice, and notice bears on the punitive damages standard. Learn more about your options when you receive a cease and desist letter.

Related Resources

• Browse All Cease & Desist Templates
• Slander Cease & Desist Template
• Cease & Desist Letter Risks: When They Backfire
• When Cease & Desist Letters Backfire Legally
• How to Beat a False Cease and Desist Letter
• Insurance Coverage Gaps for Business Defamation Claims
• Minnesota’s Anti-SLAPP Law: Combat Unfounded Defamation Lawsuits
• Minnesota Anti-SLAPP Statute
• Do I Have to Obey a Cease and Desist Letter?
• Cyberbullying and Harassment: Cease and Desist