Israeli court orders man to pay $10,000 for defamatory WhatsApp messages about ex
The man sent messages attributing sexual relations with other men to his former partner, including in a group chat with dozens of people. The court ruled that even private messages to close friends can constitute defamation.
An Israeli Family Court has ordered a man to pay NIS 30,000 ($10,000) in damages for defamatory WhatsApp messages about his former partner, including messages sent to a group of dozens of people and private messages to several friends. He was also ordered to pay NIS 11,000 in legal expenses and attorney’s fees.
The woman, who was significantly older than the man, had an on-and-off relationship with him for about two years. In her lawsuit, she argued that messages in which he attributed sexual relations with other men to her damaged her reputation and constituted defamation.
The man argued that the private messages did not qualify as “publication” under Israel’s Prohibition of Defamation Law. He maintained that the messages submitted as evidence had been sent privately to close friends as a way of expressing his distress over the relationship, rather than being disseminated publicly. He also disputed the allegation that his conversations with friends amounted to defamatory publication.
The court rejected the argument that sending messages to close friends shielded the man from liability. It ruled that a message can constitute publication under the law even when it is sent to just one other person.
“According to case law, the fact that the recipient is a close friend does not negate the element of publication, since the principle underlying Section 2 of the law is that publication is publication to one or more persons other than the injured party,” the court said.
The court also cited case law establishing that attributing sexual relations with others, infidelity or allegedly promiscuous behavior to a person can constitute defamation if the person is identifiable and the publication is liable to humiliate or degrade them in the eyes of a reasonable person.
The judge found that the man had failed to prove his allegations that his former partner had sexual relations with multiple other men. The court therefore rejected his claim that the publications were truthful. It added that even if he had substantiated the allegations, the intimate nature of the information would warrant heightened protection against its publication.
Reviewing the messages, the court found that they portrayed the woman in a degrading and humiliating manner, presenting her as promiscuous while exposing intimate details of her personal life.
“The low language that the defendant chose to use in the messages sent to his friends, using words from the root ז.י.ן [a vulgar Hebrew term for sex], as he attributes to the plaintiff sexual relations with others, presents the plaintiff to his friends in an extremely negative light and as a ridiculous figure,” the court ruled. “Therefore, without a doubt, these publications constitute defamation.”
In determining damages, the court considered the significant differences in age and life experience between the two parties, as well as their differing perceptions of the relationship. The judge noted that the man had testified that he viewed the relationship as his whole world, while the woman had testified that she understood it from the outset to be “just for sex.”
Nevertheless, the court stressed that the man was an adult when he sent the messages and remained responsible for his actions.
The court set separate damages for the two types of publication. It ordered the man to pay NIS 25,000 for the messages sent to the WhatsApp group, which exposed the allegations to dozens of people, and an additional NIS 5,000 for the private messages to several friends.
In setting the total award, the court also took into account the man’s young age, his financial circumstances and the fact that he had sent a written apology. The final judgment required him to pay NIS 30,000 in damages, plus NIS 11,000 in legal expenses and attorney’s fees.
Adv. Daniel Friedenberg, a founding partner at Hoffman & Friedenberg, a firm specializing in family and inheritance law who did not represent either party, said the ruling underscored that the end of a relationship does not extinguish a person’s right to a good name and privacy.
“The closeness between partners, which exposes them to sensitive information, requires caution when the conflict goes out into the social circle,” Friedenberg said. “Even a message to a close friend may be considered defamatory publication.”
Regarding the damages, Friedenberg said the judge had considered the pain of the breakup, the differences in age and experience, and the dynamics of the relationship, but had found no justification for the humiliation.
“The right to share the pain of a breakup with others does not grant immunity from liability for harming the good name of a former partner,” he said.
