Slanderous Defamation Online: Protection & Reputation Recovery

A simple insult amounts to the offence of insult (Article 361 GCC). Slanderous defamation (Article 363 GCC) requires the assertion or spreading of false facts about you, with the perpetrator fully aware that they are lying (criminal intent), for the sole purpose of destroying your honour and reputation. When this is done in writing on Facebook, Instagram or X, the offence is regarded as continuing, since the post remains visible and accessible.

Anonymous smearing on the internet is a myth. Every digital move leaves fingerprints. Once a complaint is filed, the public prosecutor orders the Cyber Crime Division to ask the platform (e.g. Meta, Google) for the electronic log files (logs) and the IP address of the fake profile. The internet provider then identifies the physical subscriber on the line. Time is critical here, because this data is not kept forever.

This is where the biggest legal trap lies. If a post is entirely public, it can be produced freely. But if it comes from a “locked” profile visible only to a “circle of friends”, the case law (such as Larisa Court of Appeal 346/2015 and Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of First Instance 13748/2017) often rejects it as inadmissible evidence owing to a breach of personal data. However, if we prove technically that the “private group” numbered hundreds of members (e.g. more than 300 people), the court accepts that there was no legitimate expectation of privacy and admits the evidence (as in the Thessaloniki Three-Member Court of Appeal 2116/2020 judgment).

On its own, a screenshot is weak and easily contested evidence. The opposing party can claim it is the product of digital editing (Photoshop). To “lock in” the evidence, you need to save the full URL immediately, record the metadata and, ideally, obtain a notarial deed certifying the webpage’s content or a technical report from a digital forensics expert before the perpetrator can delete the post.

No. Deleting the post stops the ongoing offence, but it does not erase the offence already committed. If the victim managed to record the digital trace lawfully, the criminal and civil proceedings can proceed as normal. Prompt deletion can be used in our defence only as a sign of active remorse, to reduce the final award of damages.

The amount of monetary satisfaction for non-pecuniary harm depends on the extent of dissemination (likes, shares), the gravity of the abuse, and the social/professional standing of those involved. In cases of systematic, relentless and public smearing, the sums awarded are large. For example, in judgment 908/2024 of the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance, the court awarded 12.000€ and 10.000€ respectively to the claimants, recognising the utter humiliation they suffered.

Yes, and this is the most powerful preventive measure. Through the lawsuit or the interim measures, we ask the court not only to order the immediate deletion of the material, but also to threaten the perpetrator with a monetary penalty and personal detention for every future offence. In judgment 908/2024, the defendant was ordered to pay a monetary penalty of 1.000€ for each day’s delay in deletion, and was threatened with a 1.000€ fine and 1 month’s imprisonment for every new offending post in the future.

This strikes directly at your professional reputation and amounts to a tort. In addition to monetary satisfaction for non-pecuniary harm, if we prove with financial data (invoices, turnover, customer cancellations) that the fake reviews led to a drop in your income, we also claim full compensation for lost profits (consequential loss).

The law does not wait. For the criminal side (a complaint for slanderous defamation), the deadline is strictly 3 months from the day you learned of the post and the perpetrator. If even a single day passes, the right is lost. For the civil side (a damages claim), the limitation period is 5 years, but delay makes it harder to preserve the digital evidence securely.

Because an ordinary lawyer knows only the law but has no idea how the internet works behind the scenes. In digital crime, if you do not know how to request data preservation from providers properly, how to check the metadata or how to rule out the tampering of a screenshot, the case will collapse on technical grounds before it ever reaches the courtroom. Our dual scientific expertise ensures that the digital evidence will be admitted beyond dispute.