Is a business that operates a Facebook page responsible for defamatory comments posted by visitors?

Yes — following the High Court's decision in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller (2021) 273 CLR 346, a Facebook page operator who facilitates (by maintaining and administering the page) the publication of comments by third parties is a 'publisher' of those comments for defamation law purposes — even without knowledge of the comments. This means that a business operating a Facebook page with public commenting enabled is potentially liable as a publisher of any defamatory comments posted by visitors. Businesses should consider disabling commenting on their Facebook pages or actively monitoring and removing defamatory comments as quickly as possible after they are posted.

Online & Social Media Defamation Lawyers — Google, Facebook, Reviews — All States

Online Defamation Lawyers — Google Reviews. Facebook Posts. Anonymous Publishers. Takedown.

Q: Can I get a court order to remove defamatory content from social media?

Yes — a court can grant an interlocutory injunction requiring the publisher (or the platform operator, in some circumstances) to remove defamatory content pending the final hearing of the defamation claim. To obtain an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must establish a prima facie case that the content is defamatory and that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction (i.e., the harm from continued publication outweighs the harm to the respondent from removing the content). Courts are cautious about granting injunctions in defamation cases — particularly where the defendant is asserting a truth defence — because granting an injunction before trial may amount to prior restraint on free speech.

Online defamation — false reviews on Google or TripAdvisor, defamatory Facebook posts, damaging Reddit threads, and anonymous online attacks — can spread quickly and cause serious and lasting reputational harm. Australian defamation law applies to online publications. A defamation lawyer advises on sending platform takedown notices, identifying anonymous publishers, and commencing proceedings against the publisher before the 1-year limitation period expires.

Free consultation Google review takedown Anonymous publisher ID All states

Request a free online defamation consultation.

Share a few details so your request can be reviewed before anyone contacts you.

Legal issue

First name Last name

Phone Email

Postcode State

What do you need help with? I agree to be contacted about this request. I understand this form does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

Your details are used to understand the request and arrange follow-up.

⚠ For online content, the 1-year limitation period begins when the content was first accessed in Australia — not when it was posted. Identifying anonymous publishers through preliminary discovery takes time. Act immediately.

Online Defamation Law

How Australian defamation law applies to online publications

Australian defamation law applies to all publications in Australia — including online publications, social media posts, review platform posts, and online news articles — regardless of where the publisher is located. A statement published on a US-based platform (Google, Facebook, Twitter/X) that is accessed in Australia is published in Australia for defamation law purposes.

The single publication rule (introduced by the 2021 Model Defamation Amendment Provisions) addressed the "multiple publication rule" that previously applied to online content — under which each fresh download of an online article was a separate publication, potentially restarting the limitation period. Under the single publication rule, all publications of the same matter by the same publisher are treated as a single publication for limitation period purposes — the 1-year period runs from the date of first publication (when content was first accessible in Australia).

The Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller (2021) 273 CLR 346 decision by the High Court of Australia held that a Facebook page operator is a "publisher" of third-party comments posted on their page — even without knowledge of the comments and even before they had an opportunity to moderate them. The decision expanded defamation liability for businesses and organisations that operate social media pages with commenting enabled.

Platform liability: Under US law (Section 230 Communications Decency Act), social media platforms are generally immune from defamation liability for third-party content. Australian law does not have an equivalent immunity — in principle, platforms can be held liable as publishers of third-party content (applying the Voller reasoning). However, in practice, most online defamation claims target the original poster rather than the platform. Platforms are more commonly served with takedown notices and preliminary discovery applications (to identify anonymous posters).

Takedown requests: Most platforms have policies for removing defamatory content on request — including Google's legal removal request process, Facebook's content reporting tools, and Trustpilot and Google Maps review removal processes. A defamation lawyer advises on the most effective takedown strategy for each platform and drafts formal legal takedown demands that are more likely to result in prompt removal than standard user reports.

Online Defamation Matters

Online and social media defamation matters we handle

Google review removal

Pursuing removal of defamatory Google reviews — through Google's legal removal process, concerns notices to the reviewer, and court proceedings against identified reviewers who refuse to remove false content.

Facebook and social media posts

Pursuing removal of defamatory Facebook posts, Instagram posts, and Twitter/X tweets — through platform reporting, legal takedown notices, concerns notices, and court proceedings.

Anonymous publisher identification

Identifying anonymous online publishers through preliminary discovery — applying to the court to compel the platform operator to provide records identifying the author of anonymous content (IP address, email, phone number).

Review platform defamation

Pursuing removal of defamatory reviews on review platforms — Trustpilot, ProductReview.com.au, TripAdvisor, Glassdoor — through the platform's dispute process and legal action against verified reviewers who make false statements.

Forum and Reddit defamation

Pursuing removal of defamatory content posted on forums, Reddit subreddits, and other community platforms — through platform policies and legal action against identified posters.

Voller page operator liability

Advising social media page operators on managing their Voller liability — moderation practices, comment disabling options, and responding to concerns notices where the page operator is named as a publisher of third-party comments.

Frequently Asked Questions

Online defamation questions answered

Can I sue someone for a defamatory Google review?

Yes — a defamatory Google review is a publication for defamation law purposes. If the review carried a defamatory imputation, identified you, and caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your reputation, you can sue the reviewer. If anonymous, a defamation lawyer can apply for preliminary discovery requiring Google to provide the account details — then serve a concerns notice and, if the review is not removed within 28 days, commence proceedings.

Is a business that operates a Facebook page responsible for defamatory visitor comments?

Yes — following Fairfax Media v Voller (2021) 273 CLR 346, a Facebook page operator who facilitates publication of third-party comments is a "publisher" of those comments for defamation purposes — even without knowledge of the comments. Businesses should consider disabling commenting on their Facebook pages or actively monitoring and removing defamatory comments as quickly as possible after they are posted.

Can I get a court order to remove defamatory content from social media?

Yes — an interlocutory injunction can require the publisher or platform to remove defamatory content pending the final hearing. The applicant must establish a prima facie case of defamation and that the balance of convenience favours the injunction. Courts are cautious in defamation cases where a truth defence is asserted — granting an injunction before trial may amount to prior restraint on free speech.