EnglishEspañol

Defamation Cease and Desist Letter: What It Does

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 20, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Defamation Cease and Desist Letter: What It Does

Updates

Corrected our description of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: its actual-malice rule was stated for public officials suing over their official conduct, and the Court left open whether ignoring a retraction demand can ever be evidence of actual malice.

Corrected the explanation of California’s retraction statute: a missed or honored correction demand limits a plaintiff to special damages outright, and actual malice, as Civil Code section 48a separately defines it, bears only on exemplary damages where a demand was made and no correction followed.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Sources and References

  1. Cornell LII: cease and desist letter (non-binding, notice and evidentiary function)(law.cornell.edu).gov
  2. Cornell LII: defamation elements and actual malice; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558(law.cornell.edu).gov
  3. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)(law.cornell.edu).gov
  4. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (private-figure fault standard)(law.cornell.edu).gov
  5. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (no separate opinion privilege; statement must be provable as false)(law.cornell.edu).gov
  6. California Civil Code § 48a (retraction/correction statute; 20-day demand; special-damages limit)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  7. California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP special motion to strike; fee-shifting)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
Share: