A Florida bill would take away media outlets’ legal defenses if they fail to remove content deemed defamatory or false from their websites – an eventuality critics say would lead to a flood of frivolous defamation lawsuits against news organizations.
Rep. J.J. Grow (R-Inverness) earlier this year filed House Bill 667, which just gained the approval of the House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee and whose companion bill is advancing in the state Senate. The measure would require news publications or broadcast outlets to permanently remove any report on their web servers which a “reasonable person” would conclude includes false or defamatory statements.
According to the Legislature’s summary of the bill, HB 667 would remove media outlets’ current protection against defamation damages if they don’t agree to expunge such material from online sources when asked.
“This bill aims to encourage media outlets to act responsibly in preventing defamation and to provide a mechanism for limiting damages if defamatory content is promptly corrected or removed,” Grow stated as his reason for filing the measure.
But critics of the bill say it will have a negative effect on routine news coverage of courts and the justice system and make Florida a favored destination for aggressive trial lawyers to file high-stakes defamation lawsuits.
“The biggest problem with the bill, as far as I am concerned, is what it does to create this new definition of falsity,” Bobby Block, executive director of the Florida-based First Amendment Foundation, told the Florida Record. “... The problem is that this creates a chilling effect. It turns basic reporting into a guessing game.”
Block offered the example of a reporter in January of 2020 covering an event that leads to an arrest or legal action based on court records or a police report. At that time, the publication would retain its legal protections against defamation based on the state’s current retraction statute, he said.
But fast-forward to 2025. Under the provisions of HB 667, if the subject of the 2020 story were acquitted, that person could argue the original report was no longer factual and demand its removal from the media outlet’s website, Block said
It’s also unclear what the bill would require if a defendant were acquitted of a crime but later found responsible for the deed in a civil proceeding, he said, adding that the O.J. Simpson car chase in Los Angeles in 1994 might have to be scrubbed from news websites under the logic behind the bill.
During his testimony about the Senate version of the bill, Block suggested anyone in favor of tort reform should oppose the bill.
SB 752 “would embolden unscrupulous lawyers and flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits …” he testified. “Lowering the bar for defamation claims serves only to empower trial lawyers at the expense of press freedom.”
Under current law, news media outlets can still be found guilty of “actual damages” even when they have Florida’s current level of legal defenses. But taking away the protections that broadcasters, newspapers and online publications have against punitive damages in defamation lawsuits could lead to less robust news coverage, according to Block.
Under the terms of the measure, a media outlet would have 10 days to take down a potentially defamatory article to protect itself from future defamation and punitive damages awards. Supporters argue that the bill is needed because, in the current digital age, the media’s use of apologies, retractions and corrections is not sufficient to stop the harm that can befall the subjects of news articles or broadcasts.