Legal aspects of fact-checking: risks of defamation and copyright infringement
Fact checkers working with copyrighted materials may face serious legal risks. The two main ones are accusations of libel and copyright infringement. Such problems can not only ruin the reputation of a journalist or a publication, but also lead to lawsuits, heavy fines, and even criminal liability. In this article, we analyze in detail the “tonic facets” of this work.
Fake information in the legal sense is considered not just erroneous or inaccurate data, but deliberately false information presented as reliable and capable of influencing public opinion, causing alarm and panic. Such actions include publishing in the media and social networks, creating and distributing fake videos, sending false messages in messengers, distorting official data, as well as spreading false information about military operations or emergencies.
When checking information, the fact checker must strictly follow the laws. This applies not only to the legislation of your country, but also to international standards, especially if you work with foreign sources. This process is also relevant for verifying social media accounts, identifying sources, or confirming the origin of publications. It inevitably confronts fact checkers with the need to comply with the laws governing the processing of personal data. After all, factchecking is not just a verification of the veracity of statements, but a complex process, during which it is often necessary to collect and analyze a variety of data, including personal information.
Laws on personal data
- In the European Union, this area of personal data is regulated by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which requires all those who work with personal information to strictly adhere to the principles of legality, transparency and data minimization. Violation of these requirements is fraught not only with reputational costs, but also with hefty fines, and in some cases, legal proceedings.
- In Russia, similar requirements are set out in Federal Law No. 152-FL “On Personal Data”, which establishes rules for the collection, storage, use and destruction of personal information. For their violation, multi-level liability is provided — administrative, criminal, civil, and even disciplinary.
- There is no single national law governing the protection of personal data in the United States. Instead, there is an extensive system of regulations, both at the federal and state levels, each covering a specific area or category of information.
Among the key federal laws are HIPAA, which regulates the confidentiality of medical data; GLBA, which concerns financial information of clients; COPPA, which protects the personal data of children under 13; and FERPA, which ensures the confidentiality of educational records.
The CCPA, California’s Consumer Privacy Law, has the widest coverage, which gives residents of the state the right to request their data, request its deletion, and refuse to sell it to third parties.
For example, the European Union has the Digital Services Act (DSA), which obliges online platforms to combat illegal content and systemic risks, including manipulation and misinformation. From February 2024, its requirements apply to all digital services operating in the EU.
Besides, in February 2025, the European Commission officially integrated the voluntary Code on combating disinformation into the DSA legal framework, making it mandatory for major platforms such as Facebook*, YouTube, TikTok and Google Search. The Media Freedom Act, a law designed to further protect journalists and ensure media independence in the digital age, is also under development.
Copyright Laws
Copyright protects the results of intellectual work: texts, photos, videos, music, programs, and more. Fact checkers constantly use other people’s materials in their work — articles, videos, audio recordings. And here it is important not to cross the line.
Despite globalization, there is no universal “copyright law”, so when creating content for an audience in different countries, it is important to consider local peculiarities. However, although copyright protection varies from country to country, it is based on international agreements. Most countries follow two key treaties:
1. Berne Convention (1886): establishes the principle of “automatic protection”. This means that copyright arises at the time of creation of the work and does not require registration. It operates in 181 countries, including Russia, the USA, China and the EU countries.
2. The TRIPS Agreement (WTO): makes the protection of intellectual property a part of international trade, setting minimum standards for member countries.
A clear example of modern challenges in the field of copyright is the litigation between film companies and the developer of generative AI:
Movie giants Disney and Universal have sued the company Midjourney, which is engaged in generative artificial intelligence. They accused the startup of massive copyright infringement, calling it a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” The companies demand compensation for damages and oblige Midjourney to ensure reliable copyright protection in its future video service. The trial in this case is still ongoing.
Defamation
When preparing publications, in addition to copyright compliance, it is important to consider the reputational risks of the persons in question in the publication. The dissemination of information that damages the honor and dignity of a person or the business reputation of a company may entail the application of legal protection measures. Typical mistakes leading to accusations of defamation:
- Emotional and aggressive language. Fact-checking should be objective and neutral. If there are too many harsh and evaluative judgments in the material, this may be perceived as an attempt to embarrass a person, rather than just establish the truth.
- Excessive attention to personality. The emphasis on a person’s personal or professional qualities (his past statements, political views), even if they are related to the topic, can be regarded as “labeling” and damaging reputation.
- Mistakes due to carelessness. If the fact checker was in a hurry and did not check everything properly, he may spread false information that will cause a public outcry or panic. Such mistakes can also be legally responsible.
Examples of litigation involving fact checkers:
Facebook* vs. John Stossel (2022). Journalist John Stossel filed a defamation lawsuit after the social network labeled his videos about wildfires in California as “misleading.” However, the court rejected the claim, ruling that the fact checkers’ notes are a subjective opinion about the authenticity of the content, and not deliberately false information.
Candice Owens vs. USA Today and Lead Stories (2020). Political commentator Candice Owens sued the publications after they checked her posts about COVID-19 and labeled them as “false information.” Owens said it caused her financial damage. However, the court rejected the claim, as she could not prove that the statements of the fact checkers were initially false.
To avoid legal and reputational risks, it is extremely important:
1. Check sources carefully before sharing information;
2. It is best to rely on official data from authorized government agencies.;
3. Do not trust sensational statements without supporting evidence and refrain from reposts if there is even the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the content.
4. If necessary, you should consult lawyers or media specialists.
Failure to thoroughly verify information can have serious consequences for both individuals and organizations, including companies, media, and government agencies. An unverified message spreads easily online, quickly gains reach, loses touch with the original source, and is often distorted during transmission. This can lead to reduced trust on the part of the audience, legal disputes, fines, as well as additional costs — for example, brands are forced to adjust their reputation, cancel planned activities, or recall products.
So, in October 2025, golf legend Jack Nicklaus won a large-scale defamation lawsuit, receiving compensation in the amount of 50 million dollars. The LIV Golf League, funded by Saudi Arabia, used the name and image of Jack Nicklaus in its marketing campaign without his consent. The disseminated materials contained a false message that Niklaus was allegedly considering an offer to become a public face of the league.
In analytics and strategic planning, even a small error in the source data can affect the quality of decisions made and lead to financial losses. Therefore, reliable fact-checking today is not just an element of combating disinformation, but an important part of responsible communication that ensures sustainability, transparency and compliance with legal requirements in the digital environment.
*Belongs to the Meta organization, recognized as extremist in the Russian Federation.