Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled that New York's one year statute of limitations for defamation claims begins to run from the time that defamatory material is posted to a website, and does not start again each time a person views or downloads the page containing the defamatory material. The statute of limitations might start to run again, however, if the material is republished - either by posting at a different location on the web, or if the defamatory material is itself updated.

In George Firth v. State of New York (see decision here), the plaintiff had been employed by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. In December, 1996, the State of New York posted a report on its Education Department's website criticizing plaintiff's managerial style and procurement of weapons. In May, 1997, the Education Department added unrelated material to its website. In March, 1998 - more than one year from the initial posting --plaintiff sued for defamation. The State of New York asked that the defamation claim be dismissed, claiming that it was time barred by New York's one year statute of limitations for defamation (see New York C.P.L.R. Section 215[3]).

The New York Court of Appeals - New York's highest court -- ruled that the action should have been dismissed because more than one year had elapsed since the material initially had been posted to the Internet. The Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the report's ongoing availability on the Internet constituted a continuing wrong or a new publication that continually re-triggered the statute of limitations. In dismissing the claim, the Court applied the "single publication" rule -- a rule traditionally applied to print publications - to the Internet publication. The Court stated that "the publication of a defamatory statement in a single issue of a newspaper, or a single issue of a magazine, although such publication consists of thousands of copies widely distributed, is, in legal effect, one publication which gives rise to one cause of action and that the applicable [s]tatute of [l]imitations runs from the date of that publication."

The Court rejected plaintiff's contention that each "hit," or viewing of the report, should be considered a new publication. The Court found that permitting a new cause of action for each viewing would defeat the purpose of the statute of limitations. It would increase the exposure of website owners to stale claims, permit multiple and harassing law suits, cause excessive liability and waste judicial resources, and would inhibit the "open, pervasive dissemination of information and ideas over the Internet, which is, of course, its greatest beneficial promise."

The Court expressly found that, although republication would re-trigger the statute of limitations, the addition of unrelated material to the Education Department's website in 1997 was not a republication. Furthermore, the Court stated that republication is not merely "a delayed circulation of the original edition," but should consist of a "subsequent publication [that] is intended to and actually reaches a new audience," such as later edition of a book, magazine or newspaper.

Although the decision resolves an unsettled area of the law, it raises several interesting questions. First, although a plaintiff is now clearly prevented from recovering money damages for defamatory material posted more than a year before commencement of the suit, there is a question whether a plaintiff can obtain a court order, or injunction, ordering that defamatory material be removed from a website more than a year after it is posted. Second, the Court did not describe what it meant by republication in the Internet context. It is very possible that changing a web page's URL or revising the particular defamatory material would be considered a republication causing the statute of limitations to run anew.

* Stephen Filler has been the principal of Law Offices of Stephen Filler since 1993 and recently became of counsel to Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.. His practice focuses on information and technology industries, such as copyright, trademark, intellectual property, electronic commerce and general business law. He is co-chairman of Intellectual Property Committee of the New York County Lawyers' Association and co-chairman of the Law and Business Special Interest Group of New York New Media Association.

LATEST NEWS

Google, CIA Invest in Recorded Future
New Public Cloud Storage Services Target IT
Beta Version of RIM's App World 2 Opens
Research Highlights iPhone 4 Antenna Woes
Taking the Measure of the Twitter 'Crime Rate'