In-House Counsel Guidebook: How to Handle Internet Defamation and Online Reputation Attacks August 2014 | Page 20

18
In the defamation context, if in-house counsel is simply seeking
an injunction, he or she can typically meet the damages element
by showing the online statements are defamatory per se. These
statements are considered so harmful that there is no need to prove
the harm. In most states – following the Restatement (Second) of
Torts, §§ 570-74, or applying similar principles – damages may be
presumed when the following types of statements are attributed
to the plaintiff: a criminal offense; a loathsome disease; behavior
inconsistent with the ability to lawfully conduct business or properly
perform in their trade or profession; or serious sexual misconduct.

Settling on the Optimal Solution
Remember that no two attacks are the same. While some
techniques for handling such matters may be used more than others
or are typically more effective, there is no blanket solution. The
surrounding circumstances will dictate how a company can and
should handle an attack. As mentioned, before deciding on the best
approach, the affected parties must balance the harm from the attack
with the costs and risks of responding in a particular manner, as well
as the likelihood of success.
The last thing in-house counsel or any other professional wants is to
worsen a company’s problem or steer them away from the optimal
solution. Thus, considering all the relevant options is a must, and
doing so and settling on the appropriate solution will benefit all
parties.

© Copyright 2014, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved.