Also known as: private figures
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A plaintiff in a defamation action who is neither a public official nor a public figure. Such a plaintiff need not prove actual malice to recover compensatory damages and may recover upon a showing of fault at least as high as negligence. Presumed or punitive damages remain unavailable absent a showing of actual malice.
Harold, an independent grain farmer, learns that sales representative Jennifer told a co-op meeting he had been banned from the local elevator for mixing contaminated grain. Harold sues Jennifer and her employer for defamation. Because Harold is a private figure, the court permits recovery upon proof that Jennifer acted negligently in repeating the unverified rumor without any verification steps.
Bruce, an independent cybersecurity consultant, attends a technology conference where an Elm Cloud representative tells potential investors that Bruce plants hidden malware in client systems. Bruce sues Elm Cloud for slander. As a private figure plaintiff, Bruce must prove the falsity of the statement to recover damages from the media defendant on a matter of public concern.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paul, a local wedding photographer with no public profile, discovers that River Press published an article claiming he secretly edits clients' photos to make them appear thinner. Paul sues the site for defamation. Because Paul is a private figure, the court applies the negligence standard rather than actual malice when evaluating the editor's failure to verify the anonymous source.
Maple Construct, a private construction subcontractor, learns that competitor Global Concrete emailed general contractors accusing it of causing a fatal scaffolding collapse. Maple Construct sues for defamation. As a private figure, Maple Construct may recover compensatory damages upon showing that Global Concrete acted negligently by sending the email without any verification.
Linda, a sole-practitioner accountant, learns that former client Acme Corp told vendors she had embezzled funds. Linda sues Acme for defamation. Because Linda is a private figure, the court requires only a showing of fault rather than actual malice, and the direct attack on professional fitness supports liability without proof of special damages.
Greenmoss Builders, a private construction company, discovers that Dun & Bradstreet sent a credit report to a handful of subscribers falsely stating that the company was insolvent. Greenmoss sues for defamation. Because the report concerned a matter of purely private concern, the court permits recovery of presumed and punitive damages upon a showing of negligence alone.
A private figure must prove at least negligence by the defendant. States may not impose strict liability even for private plaintiffs. The First Amendment requires this minimum fault threshold before liability attaches.
Supporting sources
No. A private figure plaintiff must prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages. A showing of mere negligence supports only compensatory damages.
Supporting sources
The private figure plaintiff must prove that the defamatory statements are false. The common law presumption of falsity is displaced by the First Amendment in this setting.
Supporting sources
No. The actual malice standard applies only to public officials and public figures. A private figure need prove only fault, typically negligence, unless seeking presumed or punitive damages.
Supporting sources
…Snyder because (1) he was a Catholic and (2) he was a member of the United States military. Both Matthew and petitioner were private figures,[^maj-21] and this attack was not speech on a matter of public concern. While commentary on the Catholic Church or the United States military constitutes speech on matters of public…