Online Defamation: Limitation Timeframe Under Review

Introduction

If defamatory content about you is posted online or on social media, you may have more time than previously thought to bring a claim against the online platform.  

A recent appeal court judgment suggests that liability does not arise at the moment the content is first published. Instead, it arises from the point at which you can prove the online platform was made aware of the defamatory material and failed to act.

What Has Happened?

In Gilroy v O'Leary and Google Ireland Limited (“Google”), the parties who brought the appeal (the appellants) discovered a defamatory video about them on YouTube in June 2018. They immediately sued the person who posted it but waited over four years before trying to add Google as a defendant in December 2022.

Google argued this was far too late. Under Irish defamation law, you typically have just one year to sue (extendable to two years in exceptional circumstances). Google said the clock started ticking when the video was first posted in June 2018, meaning any claim against them expired by June 2020.

The High Court agreed with Google and refused to allow the claim. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision in a judgment delivered on 24 February 2025.

Why does this Matter?

The Court of Appeal examined similar cases from England and Australia which established an important principle: Internet platforms like Google may not be legally responsible for defamatory content until they are properly notified about it and given time to respond.

This means Google might only become a "publisher" (and therefore liable) from October 2022 when they received the detailed complaint letter, or from a reasonable time after that date to allow them to investigate and respond, but not from June 2018 when the video was originally posted. The exact date when liability would begin depends on what the court considers a reasonable timeframe for Google to have acted on the complaint.

The Court found this argument credible enough that it sent the case back to the High Court for a full hearing.

What does this Mean?

• For Those Who Have Been Defamed Online: This ruling could revive cases that were previously considered time-barred, as the limitation period may now start from when platforms are formally notified rather than when content was originally posted.

  Individuals who discovered defamatory content years later may now be able to successfully sue platforms if their formal complaints were made recently, even though they would previously have been considered too late under the standard one-year limitation period.

• For Online Platform Operators: Platforms may face liability for older content based on when they received formal complaints, making standard limitation period defences less reliable. The timing of their response to take down requests could determine when legal liability begins, potentially exposing them to claims for content that previously seemed legally safe due to its age.

What Happens Next?

The High Court will now decide on this specific case, which will provide clearer guidance on when exactly the limitation clock starts for online platform liability. Until then, this area of law remains uncertain but potentially favourable for those defamed online.

For further guidance, see our previous article Online Defamation Claims: Need for Timely Intervention

Further Information

For expert legal advice about online defamation matters, please contact Ciarán Leavy, Partner or Rory Knight, Solicitor in our award-winning Litigation & Dispute Resolution Team.