Defamation across borders: where to sue when the story runs everywhere
When a defamatory article is published online, it is technically published in every jurisdiction where it can be read. That fact does not make every court available — but it makes more courts available than most publishers expect.
In the EU, the Court of Justice's line of cases from Shevill to Bolagsupplysningen gives a claimant two principal options: sue for all damage where the publisher is established, or sue where the claimant's center of interests lies. For an executive whose professional life is in Germany, a German court may hear the whole claim — even against a foreign outlet.
The US is the opposite pole. The First Amendment, the actual-malice standard for public figures, and the SPEECH Act — which blocks enforcement of foreign libel judgments that fail US constitutional scrutiny — make American courts attractive to publishers and difficult for claimants.
The practical sequence we recommend: secure evidence first (archived copies, syndication map, analytics where discoverable), send the claim letter in the publisher's home forum, and reserve the center-of-interests forum for litigation. The letter often suffices: most European publishers would rather print a correction than defend abroad.
One more instrument is routinely overlooked: data protection. Where a story is false, Article 17 GDPR supports erasure and delisting independently of a defamation verdict — a faster route to making the story unfindable while the main claim proceeds.