Online content and reputations are vital assets for businesses in the digital age. Companies rely on them as an essential part of their brand image, which in turn influences customer trust, sales, and overall growth. A positive online presence ideally leads to higher customer confidence, increased sales, and ultimately greater profits. For many businesses, a strong brand is synonymous with financial success.
However, companies are increasingly vulnerable to defamatory statements, which can quickly circulate online and harm their reputation. These statements can cause significant and immediate damage. In severe cases, especially for smaller or reputation-dependent businesses, defamatory content may even pose an existential threat. Thus, being able to protect against defamatory content is crucial.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently issued a pivotal ruling in Weidman v. Hildebrant, 2024-Ohio-2931 that further shapes the landscape of defamation lawsuits in the state—a platform that is constantly evolving. This ruling has widespread implications on the statute of limitations for defamation claims in the state of Ohio, clarifying when the timeframe to bring a claim arises.
Statute of Limitations
A statute of limitations is a law that prevents claims from being filed after a specific period of time has passed since the occurrence of an alleged injury or offense. Statutes of limitations exist for both civil and criminal causes of action. These periods of time vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of claim. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision applies the “discovery rule,” clarifying when the clock starts ticking on a plaintiff’s time to assert a claim.
Defamation
Defamation is a false statement of fact about a person that injures their reputation, exposes them to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace; or affects them adversely in their trade or business. Opinions are generally protected and immune from defamation claims. Whether a statement is a protected opinion is determined by the totality of the circumstances, which involves at least four factors:
- The specific language used.
- Whether the statement is verifiable.
- The general context of the statement.
- The broader context in which the statement appeared.
Under Section 2305.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, a claim for defamation must be commenced within one year of the cause of action accruing. This raises the question: when does cause of action for defamation “accrue?”
The Discovery Rule
Under the discovery rule, “a cause of action does not arise until the plaintiff discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she was injured by the wrongful conduct of the defendant.” Historically, the discovery rule is rooted in personal injury and asbestos litigation to address latency periods between an injury or harm occurring and a plaintiff’s actual knowledge of it. The rule was first adopted in Ohio to allow a claim for medical malpractice after a plaintiff-patient discovered in 1968 that medical forceps and a sponge were left inside his body by a doctor that performed surgery on him in 1958. Applying the discovery rule, the Melnyk Court held in the plaintiff’s favor even though the condition was not discovered for ten years, noting the rule’s applicability in instances of “fraudulent concealment, unknown and inherently unknowable conditions, ‘constructive’ fraudulent concealment, and continuing negligence.” Thus, plaintiff’s cause of action “accrued” at the time the condition was discovered in 1968, rather than when it occurred in 1958.
The Weidman Decision
Weidman involved the 2011 publication of defamatory statements about plaintiff sent from a fictitious email to a third party. Here, plaintiff was unaware of their existence at the time they were made. However, in 2020, the email surfaced, and an investigation ensued since it alleged illegal activity. In 2021, plaintiff filed suit, but the trial court dismissed the claim since it was made after the applicable statute of limitations. However, on appeal, the court held the discovery rule applied and overturned the trial court’s decision. Lastly, the Supreme Court of Ohio took the case on review and applied the discovery rule, allowing the claim to proceed since the statements were not discovered until 2020.
In years past, a cause of action for defamation “accrued” on the date of publication—as in the date a statement was made available for public consumption. As noted by the dissent, the rationale behind this 170-year application is that “a cause of action for defamation accrues at the time the defamatory words are communicated because the damage to reputation occurs immediately.”
Instead, Justice Kennedy felt the majority was judicially crafting law to circumvent the statute of limitations. Accord to her, if the discovery rule must apply to defamation claims, then it is up to the General Assembly to craft laws much like it did for bodily-injury and asbestos claims.
Rather than following Justice Kennedy’s rationale, the majority applied the discovery rule, reasoning that by not applying it a “tortfeasor could conceal a publication until the statute-of-limitations period has expired” and “could secretly publish defamatory statements without concern that the defamed person would be able to seek recourse.” The majority further held the rule should be invoked where “the injury complained of may not manifest itself immediately and…fairness necessitates allowing the assertion of a claim when discovery of the injury occurs beyond the statute of limitations.”
According to the majority, “application of the traditional rule would lead to an unconscionable result that the injured party’s right to recovery can be barred by the statute of limitations before he is even aware of its existence.” Instead, “the discovery rule allows those who are injured adequate time to seek relief on the merits without undue prejudice to defendants.”
Conclusion
The Discovery Rule ensures that those who spread disinformation are not able to remain unscathed in perpetuity simply because their content was not discovered before the statute of limitations. The rule de-shields wrongdoers and makes recourse possible for those that do not immediately discover false statements made about them. Fortunately for businesses, the rule gives an extra layer to protect brands and reputations and prevents wrongdoers from benefitting by concealing false statements until the statute of limitations expires.
For additional information regarding the content of this article or how to protect your company from false reviews, please contact Michael R. Cantu (MRC@kjk.com; 216-736-7212).