Defamation Statute of Limitations: How Long Do You Have to Sue?

How long do you have to file a defamation lawsuit?

In the United States, the deadline to sue for defamation is set by each state, and it usually falls somewhere between one and three years, according to the Digital Media Law Project. In most states the clock starts when the false statement is first published, not when you first see it. For online content, that generally means the date the post, article or review first went live. The table below shows the period for each state; confirm it with a licensed attorney in that state before you rely on it, because the details of your case can change the answer.

Statute of limitations for defamation by state

Filter by state

Showing 51 of 51 states

State	Libel	Slander
Alabama	2 years	2 years
Alaska	2 years	2 years
Arizona	1 year	1 year
Arkansas	3 years	1 year
California	1 year	1 year
Colorado	1 year	1 year
Connecticut	2 years	2 years
Delaware	2 years	2 years
District of Columbia	1 year	1 year
Florida	2 years	2 years
Georgia	1 year	1 year
Hawaii	2 years	2 years
Idaho	2 years	2 years
Illinois	1 year	1 year
Indiana	2 years	2 years
Iowa	2 years	2 years
Kansas	1 year	1 year
Kentucky	1 year	1 year
Louisiana	2 years	2 years
Maine	2 years	2 years
Maryland	1 year	1 year
Massachusetts	3 years	3 years
Michigan	1 year	1 year
Minnesota	2 years	2 years
Mississippi	1 year	1 year
Missouri	2 years	2 years
Montana	2 years	2 years
Nebraska	1 year	1 year
Nevada	2 years	2 years
New Hampshire	3 years	3 years
New Jersey	1 year	1 year
New Mexico	3 years	3 years
New York	1 year	1 year
North Carolina	1 year	1 year
North Dakota	2 years	2 years
Ohio	1 year	1 year
Oklahoma	1 year	1 year
Oregon	1 year	1 year
Pennsylvania	1 year	1 year
Rhode Island	3 years	1 year
South Carolina	2 years	2 years
South Dakota	2 years	2 years
Tennessee	1 year	6 months
Texas	1 year	1 year
Utah	1 year	1 year
Vermont	3 years	3 years
Virginia	1 year	1 year
Washington	2 years	2 years
West Virginia	1 year	1 year
Wisconsin	3 years	3 years
Wyoming	1 year	1 year

Values come from each jurisdiction’s guide, checked against official sources on November 1, 2026. Open the guide for the exact rule, exceptions and sources.

What a statute of limitations means in a defamation case

A statute of limitations is a law that bars a claim once a set amount of time has passed. As Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute explains, the length of that window depends on the jurisdiction and the type of claim. If you file after the deadline, the person you are suing can raise the deadline as a defense and ask the court to throw out the claim, even if the statement was false and harmful.

Defamation deadlines tend to be short compared with many other civil claims. The reasoning is practical: memories fade, posts get edited or deleted, and evidence about who said what becomes harder to prove. Short deadlines also limit how long a publisher stays exposed to a lawsuit over a single statement.

Some states set one deadline for both written and spoken defamation, while others treat them differently. If you are not sure which category your situation falls into, our guide to libel vs. slander explains the difference, and defamation per se covers statements the law treats as harmful by their nature.

When the clock starts: the single publication rule

Most states follow what is known as the single publication rule. Under this rule, one publication gives rise to one claim, and the limitations period runs from the moment the statement is first made public. The Digital Media Law Project notes that most states apply the same approach to material published online.

A leading example is Firth v. State of New York, decided by New York’s highest court in 2002. A summary of a state Inspector General report criticizing the plaintiff was posted on a state agency website the day the report was released, and he filed his claim more than a year later, after New York’s one-year deadline. The Court of Appeals held that the single publication rule applies to internet postings, so the deadline ran from the original posting rather than restarting each time someone viewed the page. The court reasoned that treating each new view as a new publication would let the deadline restart again and again.

In practice, this means an old post that still ranks on page one of Google can be outside the legal deadline even though new people read it every day. Continued availability alone usually does not reset the clock.

Does the clock start when you discover the statement?

Usually not, at least for statements that were published openly. Some areas of law use a discovery rule, which starts the clock when the injury was found or reasonably should have been found. Cornell’s Legal Information Institute lists the discovery date as one possible starting point for a limitations period in general.

Courts have been reluctant to apply that rule to defamation that was made public. In Shively v. Bozanich (2003), the California Supreme Court held that the discovery rule could not delay the start of a defamation claim once the statement had been made public in a book. As the case summary explains, the deadline ran from the date the book was first generally distributed to the public, regardless of when the plaintiff actually learned of it. In short, the discovery rule cannot push the start date past the point when the statement is no longer secret.

That is why waiting can be costly. If a false review or article about you has been online for months before you notice it, much of your time may already be gone.

When a new deadline can start: republication

There is an important exception. If the same false statement is published again in a way that counts as a new publication, a new limitations period may start for that new publication. Courts call this republication.

• Reaching a new audience. In Firth, the New York Court of Appeals described republication as a later publication that is intended to reach, and actually reaches, a new audience, such as a new edition of a book. Adding unrelated material to the same website did not qualify.
• Changing the statement itself. In Yeager v. Bowlin (2012), the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, said a statement on a website is not republished unless the statement itself is substantively altered or added to, or the site is directed to a new audience. Routine edits to other parts of the site were not enough.

Whether a repost, a new article that repeats the claim, or a share by a different account counts as republication depends on the facts and on the state. This is one of the questions worth raising with a lawyer, because it can decide whether a claim is still alive.

Situations that can pause or complicate the deadline

Limitations periods are not always a simple count from the publication date. A few factors can change the picture:

• Tolling. To toll a deadline means to stop it from running for a period of time. Cornell’s Legal Information Institute notes that courts may toll a deadline based on characteristics of the plaintiff or defendant, or while the parties were negotiating in good faith to settle. Whether any tolling rule applies is a question of state law.
• More than one jurisdiction. Online statements can be read anywhere. When the person who posted, the person harmed and the website are in different places, which state’s or country’s deadline applies can itself be disputed.
• Related claims. Some people consider framing the same facts as a different claim with a longer deadline. Courts often look at what the claim is really about. The Digital Media Law Project describes a Texas case in which business claims based only on defamatory statements were held to the shorter defamation deadline, so this is not a reliable workaround. Our guides to online harassment laws and cyberstalking laws cover conduct that is governed by separate rules.
• Early dismissal rules. Even a timely claim can face a motion under a state’s anti-SLAPP law if it targets speech on a public issue.

Defamation deadlines outside the United States

Other countries set their own time limits, and they can be shorter than many people expect. In England and Wales, for example, the Limitation Act 1980 sets a period of one year from the date the cause of action accrued. A court can allow a late claim to proceed if it finds that fair, weighing the reasons for the delay, when the facts became known and whether evidence has been lost, under section 32A.

England and Wales also has a statutory single publication rule. Under section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013, a later publication of substantially the same statement is treated as made on the date of the first one, unless the later publication is materially different in manner, for example in its prominence or how widely it reaches.

For other countries, see the country pages in our defamation laws by state and country hub.

What to do if you think you have a defamation claim

Because the deadline is short and usually starts on publication, the first steps matter most. These are practical steps, not legal advice:

1. Record the date of first publication. Note when the content first appeared, not when you found it. Timestamps on posts, archived copies and early comments can help establish this.
2. Preserve the evidence. Take full screenshots that show the URL, the date, the author and the surrounding context. Save links and, where possible, archived copies, because posts can be edited or deleted.
3. Identify who published it. Note the account, author or publisher and the platform it appears on. The answer affects both your legal options and how the content can be reported.
4. Check the deadline for the relevant state. Use the state table on this page as a starting point, then confirm it with a licensed attorney in that jurisdiction.
5. Speak with a defamation lawyer early. A lawyer can assess whether the statement is actionable, which law applies and whether republication or tolling could matter. Our overview of how to sue for defamation explains what that process involves.
6. Use non-legal channels in parallel. Reporting the content to the platform does not depend on a lawsuit. Our guide on how to report defamation on social media walks through each platform’s process.
7. Avoid amplifying it. Public replies, reposts and arguments in the comments can spread the statement to a wider audience and make it rank higher.

If the deadline has already passed

Missing the legal deadline usually means you can no longer win damages in court over that statement. It does not always mean the content has to stay where it is.

Platforms and search engines apply their own policies, and those policies are separate from statutes of limitations. Google, for example, has a legal removal request process for content that may violate the law or someone’s rights; Google reviews each request and decides whether to restrict the content, and it notes that removing something from its products does not remove it from the rest of the web. Many review sites and social networks also remove posts that break their rules on fake reviews, harassment or impersonation, regardless of how old they are.

It also helps to know who can be held responsible. Under 47 U.S.C. § 230, platforms are generally not treated as the publisher of content posted by their users, which is why removal from a platform usually runs through its own reporting tools rather than a lawsuit against the platform. Where content cannot be removed, it can sometimes be pushed down in search results so it is no longer the first thing people see.

How Media Removal can help

Media Removal is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. If you are within the deadline and considering a lawsuit, a licensed attorney is the right first call, and we are glad to work alongside your lawyer.

What we do is work on the content itself. We review the URLs that are hurting you and tell you honestly which ones can be removed, and through which pathway: direct outreach to the publisher, platform-specific reporting, search engine requests or legal channels handled by your counsel. When removal is not possible, we focus on suppression and on building accurate, authoritative results through online reputation management.

No one can promise an outcome. Final decisions rest with platforms, publishers, search engines and courts. For content removal, you pay only after it is removed. If false statements are spreading quickly, our reputation crisis management team can help you contain the damage while your legal options are assessed. To start, send us the links and we will review them for free.

Frequently asked questions

What is the statute of limitations for defamation?

In the United States it depends on the state. Most periods fall between one and three years, and the clock usually starts when the statement is first published. Check the table on this page for your state and confirm the deadline with a licensed attorney.

Does the deadline for online defamation start when the post went up or when I found it?

In most states it starts when the content was first published online, not when you discovered it. Courts have generally refused to delay the start date for statements that were made public, which is why acting quickly matters.

Does editing or reposting a defamatory post restart the clock?

It can, depending on the facts and the state. Courts have treated a statement as republished when it is substantively changed or directed to a new audience, but unrelated edits to the same website or the post simply staying online usually do not restart the deadline.

Is the deadline different for libel and slander?

In some states it is. Some set one period for both written and spoken defamation, while others set different periods. The table on this page shows both where the data is available.

Can defamatory content still be removed after the statute of limitations has passed?

Sometimes. Platform and search engine policies are separate from court deadlines, so content that breaks a platform’s rules can still be reported and removed. When removal is not possible, it can sometimes be pushed down in search results. No one can guarantee either outcome.

Is Media Removal a law firm?

No. Media Removal does not give legal advice or file lawsuits. We work on removing or suppressing harmful content through publishers, platforms and search engines, and we can work alongside your attorney.

Sources

• Digital Media Law Project: Statute of Limitations for Defamation
• Digital Media Law Project: Statute of limitations case summaries
• Firth v. State of New York (N.Y. Court of Appeals, 2002)
• Shively v. Bozanich (Cal. Supreme Court, 2003), FindLaw summary
• Yeager v. Bowlin, No. 10-15297 (9th Cir. 2012)
• Cornell LII Wex: Statute of limitations
• Cornell LII Wex: Toll
• Limitation Act 1980, section 4A (UK)
• Limitation Act 1980, section 32A (UK)
• Defamation Act 2013, section 8 (UK)
• 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Cornell LII)
• Google: Report content for legal reasons