The record preserved
Publication, reach and authorship evidenced before takedowns and edits erase them — the claim's foundation secured on day one.
Defamation disputes
A publication is damaging your name — or a claim is threatening yours.
Defamation litigation under Israel's Defamation Law 1965: Aun & Co. acts for claimants and defendants over publications, reviews, posts and press statements.
The Prohibition of Defamation Law 1965 draws the lines: what counts as defamatory publication, the statutory damages available without proof of loss, and the defences — truth with public interest, and the good-faith protections — that decide most cases. Online publication has multiplied both the exposure and the evidence. The firm acts on both sides: for those whose reputation is being burned by a publication, and for those facing a claim designed more to silence than to compensate.
The work spans
- Claims over online posts, reviews, articles and broadcast statements
- Defence built on truth, public interest and good-faith protections
- Statutory damages claims where the law presumes harm
- Urgent removal and restraint applications against ongoing publication
- Pre-suit demand and retraction strategy that preserves the claim
- A review or post about your business is factually false and climbing the search results.
- A competitor's letter to your customers implies fraud without quite saying it.
- You published criticism you can prove and now face a claim meant to make you retract.
- A journalist's enquiry signals a coming story and the response window is hours, not weeks.
Evidence is captured first — screenshots, archives, distribution metrics — because publications vanish when letters arrive. The statement is then parsed sentence by sentence: fact from opinion, sting from noise, and each imputation tested against the statutory defences before suit. On defence, the same parsing runs in reverse, and the proportionality of continuing versus retracting is put to the client in numbers.
04 · What you get
Sting analysis
The actionable imputations isolated from background noise, so the case is fought over statements that meet the statutory test.
Remedy proportioned
Retraction, apology, damages or injunction — the demanded remedy sized to the harm and to what a court would actually give.
The firm has acted where a business faced a coordinated series of online publications by an identifiable author mixing verifiable falsehoods with protected opinion. The engagement separated the actionable statements, secured the evidentiary record, and paired a removal demand with a statutory-damages claim.
Described in abbreviated, anonymised form to preserve client confidentiality.
Can I sue for defamation in Israel without proving financial loss?
Yes. The Defamation Law 1965 allows statutory damages without proof of actual loss, with a higher ceiling where the publication was intended to harm. Proving concrete loss remains relevant when the real damage exceeds the statutory bands.
Is a negative online review defamation?
Not by itself. Opinion honestly held about a genuine experience is generally protected; false statements of fact are not. The legal analysis separates the two within the same review — and the false factual core is what a claim stands on.
How quickly should I act against a defamatory publication?
Immediately for evidence, deliberately for action. Preserve the publication and its reach the day you learn of it; then decide on demand, removal or suit with the full picture. Waiting costs proof; rushing costs strategy.
Can statutory damages be awarded without proving specific loss?
The law provides for damages in defamation, including a statutory measure that can be awarded without proof of actual loss, with the amount turning on the publication and the circumstances.