South Dakota Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026)

In South Dakota, defamation is a civil claim with a two-year filing deadline under SDCL 15-2-15, which expressly covers libel and slander. South Dakota defines both forms by statute in SDCL chapter 20-11, and a new anti-SLAPP law signed in 2026 (Senate Bill 137) takes effect July 1, 2026.

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

What counts as defamation in South Dakota?

South Dakota defines defamation by statute. SDCL 20-11-2 provides that defamation is effected by libel or slander, and SDCL 20-11-3 and 20-11-4 define each form. To recover, a plaintiff generally must show a false and unprivileged publication of a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, communicated to a third party, with the required degree of fault. The statement must assert a fact capable of being proven true or false, because pure opinion is constitutionally protected and not actionable. Truth is a defense in South Dakota. Because SDCL 15-2-15 sets a two-year limitation period for libel and slander, identifying the specific false factual statement and acting promptly are both important early steps. The fault standard depends on whether the plaintiff is a private person or a public figure, a distinction drawn from federal constitutional law that applies identically in every state.

Watch out: An honest opinion or a fair comment on disclosed facts is not defamation. Courts ask whether a reasonable reader or listener would understand the words as stating a verifiable fact rather than a subjective view.

Libel vs slander in South Dakota

South Dakota recognizes the traditional split between libel and slander, and it defines both by statute, but both are governed by the same two-year limitation period in SDCL 15-2-15. Under SDCL 20-11-3, libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye that exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or that causes the person to be shunned or avoided, or that tends to injure the person in their occupation. Under SDCL 20-11-4, slander is a false and unprivileged oral publication that charges a crime, imputes a contagious or loathsome disease, injures the person in their office, profession, trade, or business, imputes impotence or want of chastity, or by natural consequence causes actual damage.

Defamation per se in South Dakota

Defamation per se refers to statements so inherently harmful that the law treats them as actionable without proof of special damages. South Dakota's slander statute, SDCL 20-11-4, lists the categories that function as slander per se: a statement that charges any person with a crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for a crime; that imputes the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; that tends directly to injure the person in respect to office, profession, trade, or business; or that imputes impotence or want of chastity. A fifth category, in SDCL 20-11-4(5), reaches statements that by natural consequence cause actual damage, which corresponds to slander per quod and requires proof of harm. For libel, a publication that is defamatory on its face under SDCL 20-11-3 is generally actionable without separate proof of special damages. When a statement is per se actionable, South Dakota courts have generally treated reputational harm as presumed.

The statute of limitations to sue for defamation in South Dakota

The statute of limitations for defamation in South Dakota is two years. SDCL 15-2-15 provides that an action for libel or slander, among certain other torts, can be commenced only within two years after the cause of action accrues. The clock generally begins to run on the date the defamatory statement is first published to a third party. South Dakota follows the single-publication rule, which means that for a book, broadcast, or online post, the period runs from the date of first publication and does not restart each time someone reads, shares, or downloads the material. Substantively modifying content or republishing it to reach a new audience can restart the period. The two-year window is shorter than many other civil deadlines, so plaintiffs should not wait until the deadline approaches before gathering evidence and consulting counsel.

Watch out: The two-year clock generally runs from the date of first publication, not from when you happen to discover the statement. Acting promptly protects an otherwise strong claim.

South Dakota's anti-SLAPP law

South Dakota now has an anti-SLAPP law. In March 2026, the governor signed Senate Bill 137, which adopts the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act and takes effect July 1, 2026, making South Dakota one of the states with a modern anti-SLAPP statute after years without one. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation, a suit filed primarily to silence or burden someone for speaking on a matter of public concern. Under the law, a defendant who is sued over protected speech, petition, or association on a public issue may file a special motion for expedited dismissal, which generally stays the proceeding and discovery while the court decides the motion. If the motion succeeds, the court awards the defendant court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. Supporters noted that the law does not create immunity from meritorious defamation suits; it screens out suits aimed at chilling lawful speech. Because the statute is new and being codified, plaintiffs and defendants should confirm the current section numbers and procedures.

Public figures and actual malice

The level of fault a South Dakota defamation plaintiff must prove turns on who they are, and that rule comes from federal constitutional law applied identically in every state. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public official suing over statements about official conduct must prove actual malice, meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), extended actual malice to public figures and held that private plaintiffs need only prove negligence, although they generally must show actual injury when the speech involves a matter of public concern. Actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than the usual preponderance. In South Dakota defamation litigation, whether the plaintiff is a public official, a public figure, or a private person is frequently the decisive issue.

Damages you can recover in South Dakota

A defamation plaintiff in South Dakota may recover several types of damages. Special damages cover concrete economic losses, such as lost wages, lost clients, or lost business directly caused by the defamatory statement. General damages compensate for reputational harm, mental anguish, and humiliation. When a statement is libel defamatory on its face or fits a slander per se category in SDCL 20-11-4, South Dakota courts have generally treated harm as presumed, so the plaintiff need not prove a specific dollar loss. The natural-consequence category in SDCL 20-11-4(5) requires proof of actual damage. Punitive damages may be available where the plaintiff shows the defendant acted with malice, though Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. can require proof of actual injury before presumed or punitive damages are awarded in cases involving private plaintiffs and matters of public concern. The damages a court will consider depend heavily on which statutory category applies.

How to sue for defamation in South Dakota

Pursuing a South Dakota defamation claim generally follows a sequence, though the right path depends on the facts. Many plaintiffs start by preserving evidence, including the exact statement, the date and place it was published, and who saw or heard it, because the single-publication rule ties the deadline to first publication. Some plaintiffs send a cease-and-desist letter or retraction demand, which can prompt a correction and document the dispute. A plaintiff then files a complaint in the appropriate South Dakota circuit court within the two-year period set by SDCL 15-2-15. If the suit targets speech on a matter of public concern, the defendant may invoke South Dakota's new anti-SLAPP statute, Senate Bill 137, which can trigger an expedited dismissal motion, a stay, and fee-shifting once it is in effect on July 1, 2026. Because the law is new and the section numbers are being finalized, consulting a licensed South Dakota attorney early is wise. This article is general information, not legal advice.