Minnesota Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026)

In Minnesota, defamation is a civil claim for a false statement of fact that harms your reputation, and you have two years to sue from the date of publication, under Minnesota Statutes Section 541.07(1). Minnesota also adopted a new anti-SLAPP law in 2024 after its earlier statute was struck down.

This guide is part of our Defamation Laws by State series. For the underlying concept, see what defamation of character means.

What counts as defamation in Minnesota?

Under Minnesota law, defamation is a false statement of fact about you, communicated to a third person, that harms your reputation in the community. Minnesota courts, in cases such as Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., require a plaintiff to prove that the statement was false, that it was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, and that it tended to harm the plaintiff's reputation and lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the community. The statement must assert a verifiable fact, so insults, rhetorical hyperbole, and genuine opinion are not actionable. Truth is a complete defense in Minnesota, which means a substantially accurate statement cannot be defamatory regardless of the harm it causes. The statement must also be "of and concerning" you, so a reasonable listener or reader must understand it to refer to you specifically rather than to a vague or large group.

Watch out: Calling a statement an "opinion" does not automatically protect it. Minnesota courts examine whether the words imply specific, false underlying facts, so an opinion that suggests hidden defamatory facts can still be actionable.

Libel vs slander in Minnesota

Minnesota recognizes both libel and slander as forms of defamation, and both are governed by the same two-year filing deadline. Libel is defamation in written or otherwise permanent form, such as a newspaper article, an online post, an email, or a review. Slander is spoken or transitory defamation, such as a false accusation made aloud at work or at a meeting. The historical distinction mattered most for whether a plaintiff had to prove specific monetary loss, because certain categories of defamation were treated as actionable without that proof. Minnesota applies a fault requirement consistent with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., and Minnesota courts have extended the actual-malice requirement for presumed damages even to some nonmedia defendants, which makes the fault analysis important in both libel and slander cases.

What is defamation per se in Minnesota?

Minnesota recognizes the four traditional categories of defamation per se. Courts have generally held that a statement is defamatory per se if it falsely (1) accuses a person of committing a crime, (2) accuses a person of having a loathsome or contagious disease, (3) refers to improper or incompetent conduct involving a person's business, trade, or profession, or (4) accuses a person of serious sexual misconduct, historically called unchastity. The key consequence is that when a statement is defamatory per se, general damages are presumed, so a plaintiff may recover without proving that the statement caused specific, measurable harm. The Minnesota Supreme Court applied this in Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., a workplace defamation case involving harm to the plaintiff's professional reputation. Statements that are not defamatory on their face require proof of special damages, so the per se categories carry significant practical weight in Minnesota litigation.

The statute of limitations to sue for defamation in Minnesota

Minnesota gives defamation plaintiffs a two-year window to sue. Minnesota Statutes Section 541.07(1) lists "libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort resulting in personal injury" among the actions that must be "commenced within two years." The clock generally begins when the defamatory statement is published. Minnesota courts apply principles consistent with the single-publication rule, treating a single publication of defamatory material as triggering one limitations period rather than restarting the clock each time the material is later viewed or distributed. That approach prevents stale claims based on continued availability of older content. Two years is more generous than the one-year deadline in many states, but plaintiffs should still preserve evidence promptly, because witnesses move, memories fade, and online content can be edited or deleted before a case is filed.

Watch out: The two-year clock generally runs from the date of first publication, not from when you discovered the statement, so continued online availability of the same content does not reliably extend your time to sue.

Minnesota's anti-SLAPP law

Minnesota's anti-SLAPP history is unusual, so the current rule deserves care. The state's earlier anti-SLAPP statute, found in Chapter 554, was effectively struck down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota, 895 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2017), which held that requiring a judge to make pretrial findings on whether speech was tortious violated the plaintiff's right to a jury trial under the Minnesota Constitution. To fill the gap, the Legislature enacted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, codified at Minnesota Statutes Sections 554.07 through 554.19, which became law in 2024. UPEPA lets a defendant sued over protected speech or petitioning on a matter of public concern file an expedited special motion, stays most proceedings including discovery while the motion is pending, and shifts court costs, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses to a defendant who prevails. The newer act was designed to avoid the constitutional defect that doomed the prior law.

Public figures and actual malice

The level of fault a plaintiff must prove depends on whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private person, a rule that comes from federal constitutional law and applies the same way in Minnesota as everywhere else. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public official or public figure must prove the defendant published with "actual malice," meaning knowledge the statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was true. Under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), a private individual generally need only prove negligence. Minnesota has gone further in one respect, requiring proof of actual malice to recover presumed damages even against some nonmedia defendants, which raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking presumed damages. The threshold classification question, whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private person, therefore shapes both the fault standard and the availability of presumed damages.

Damages you can recover in Minnesota

Minnesota recognizes several categories of defamation damages. Special damages are concrete economic losses, such as lost wages, lost business, or lost employment, that the plaintiff can document. General damages compensate for harm to reputation, humiliation, and emotional distress, and these are presumed when a statement is defamatory per se, although Minnesota requires actual malice for presumed damages in some situations. Punitive damages may be available in egregious cases, subject to Minnesota's general statutory standards for punitive awards. One important wrinkle is the newspaper retraction statute, Minnesota Statutes Section 548.06, which provides that in a libel action against a newspaper, the plaintiff may recover no more than special damages unless a retraction is demanded and refused, with exceptions for certain matters such as charges of unchastity or libels published shortly before an election. Because of these rules, the value of a Minnesota defamation case can depend heavily on the type of statement and whether a retraction was sought.

How to sue for defamation in Minnesota

Pursuing a Minnesota defamation claim generally begins before any complaint is filed. People often start by preserving evidence, including screenshots, publication dates, URLs, and the identities of anyone who saw or heard the statement, because witnesses and online content can disappear over the two-year period. When a newspaper is involved, demanding a retraction can matter, because Minnesota Statutes Section 548.06 may limit recovery to special damages absent a demand and refusal. A lawsuit is then filed in the appropriate Minnesota district court, and the plaintiff must be prepared to prove falsity, fault, and harm, while a defendant may respond with a UPEPA special motion if the speech involved a matter of public concern. Because Minnesota combines a two-year deadline, a recently rebuilt anti-SLAPP regime, and special retraction rules, this guide is general information, not legal advice, and consulting a licensed Minnesota attorney about your situation is the safest course.