Defamation Litigation
Benesch’s Defamation Litigation team has built a national reputation for handling the most consequential defamation matters in the country. From multibillion-dollar suits to fast, behind-the-scenes damage control, we protect reputations with speed, precision and impact.
Overview
We regularly take on major media outlets and their elite legal teams, and we have won time and time again.
Defending Reputations. Delivering Results.
We represent corporations, executives, public figures, celebrities and others whose reputations have been targeted or falsely maligned. We understand the stakes and know how to respond strategically, whether that means quietly correcting a false story before publication or filing a high-profile lawsuit with national implications.
Our team has prevailed in some of the most significant defamation cases in U.S. history, including one of the largest defamation recoveries ever achieved. We’ve successfully gone toe-to-toe with the world’s most powerful media organizations.
Reputation is everything.
When yours is on the line, you need Benesch, the team with a track record of shutting down falsehoods, holding the media accountable and winning in court.
One Group, One Team, for All Your Needs.
Our defamation lawyers regularly advise and represent public and private companies—from multi-billion-dollar industry leaders to small, family-owned businesses—as well as individuals who find themselves under attack by media, competitors and social media influencers.
Our experience includes:
Litigating libel and slander claims on behalf of businesses, executives and public figures.
Preventing publication of falsehoods by engaging with publishers and platforms before content is released.
Forcing retractions or corrections through focused and strategic media intervention.
Identifying defamatory or misleading statements early and advising on real-time legal responses.
Our Focused, Fast Approach Vindicates Your Reputation
We assess reputational threats in real-time, tracking how stories evolve, measuring exposure and damage and advising on communications and legal strategy. From responding to journalists before a story breaks to correcting misinformation in already-published content, we protect our clients at every stage of a threat. If litigation becomes necessary, we build compelling cases that redeem our clients’ reputations, both in court and in the public eye, and earn you the compensation you deserve. We also help clients proactively prevent reputational harm.
Highly experienced in crisis management, we stop defamatory content before it spreads and force corrections or retractions that limit further damage when defamatory content has already been released.
Related Practices
Our work in action
Representative Examples
Achieved a significant summary judgment decision for election technology company Smartmatic
in its defamation case against MyPillow and Mike Lindell. The Court found Lindell’s accusations were false and defamatory per se and that MyPillow was vicariously liable for their publication. The ruling also found injunctive relief was appropriate pursuant to the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case will be proceeding to trial in Minnesota Federal Court in 2026.
Representing election technology company Smartmatic in high-stakes defamation actions
against Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and others for spreading false claims of election fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Successfully defeated motions to dismiss across the board and secured favorable settlements from OANN and Newsmax, positioning the case among the most consequential defamation suits in recent U.S. history.
Secured what was then the largest defamation settlement in U.S. history
on behalf of Beef Products Inc. (now Empirical Foods) in a high-profile suit against ABC News over its “pink slime” reporting. The case concluded after four weeks of trial testimony, widely viewed by the press and industry leaders as a full vindication of the company.*
Represented a former cast member of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills
in a defamation action against an anonymous blogger behind a widely read celebrity gossip site. Achieved the removal of defamatory content and secured a favorable settlement.
Successfully dissuaded a major national news network
from airing a politically motivated and defamatory investigative segment targeting a well-known philanthropist and their grantmaking organization—preventing reputational harm before it occurred.
Defended one of the nation’s largest dental service organizations
against a defamatory story published by USA Today and rapidly syndicated across Gannett-affiliated media. Led a 48-hour legal response involving more than 150 cease-and-desist demands, resulting in widespread retractions and effectively halting further damage to the client’s reputation.
*Matter completed prior to joining Benesch.
Related News
Is Florida the New Hot Jurisdiction for Defamation Cases?
Florida is emerging as a favorable venue for defamation lawsuits because its long-arm statute makes it easier to bring out-of-state publishers into court—but plaintiffs still must clear the same substantive legal hurdles once the case gets there.
South Dakota’s Inaugural Anti-SLAPP Statute
South Dakota’s new Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, effective July 1, 2026, gives defendants in SLAPP suits a fast-track procedure for dismissal and fee recovery, expanding protections for free speech and public participation.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
AI tools are already generating false, reputation-damaging statements about real people—but early defamation lawsuits against companies like OpenAI, Google and Meta are struggling because courts are applying traditional defamation rules and often finding no liability (especially where disclaimers exist or harm isn’t proven).
A Defining Year for Defamation: Key Decisions and Emerging Trends
The past year saw several high-profile rulings reinforcing core defamation principles, including the Supreme Court’s refusal to revisit Alex Jones’s $1.4 billion verdict, new guidance on actual malice standards and changes to anti-SLAPP motion procedures in the Ninth Circuit—all of which are reshaping the legal landscape for media, public figures and their counsel.