Injurious Falsehood as a Cause of Action in New York

Injurious falsehood, also known as trade libel or disparagement, is a tort recognized under New York law. It protects individuals and businesses from false statements that cause economic harm to their reputation, products, or services. To succeed on a claim for injurious falsehood in New York, a plaintiff must prove several specific elements. Each must be clearly established in order for the claim to survive dismissal.

False and Malicious Statements

The foundation of an injurious falsehood claim is a false statement made by the defendant. These statements must be more than inaccurate—they must be made with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth. Malice in this context refers to an intent to harm the plaintiff or a knowing or reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or false. The plaintiff must show that the defendant acted intentionally or irresponsibly, not merely negligently.

Intent or Recklessness Leading to Harm

In addition to falsity and malice, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant made the statements with the intent to cause harm or with reckless disregard for the consequences. It must be shown that the defendant either wanted to damage the plaintiff or acted so carelessly that they should have foreseen that their statements would cause harm. A reasonably prudent person in the defendant’s position should have anticipated that their conduct could lead to reputational or economic damage to the plaintiff.

Reasonable Foreseeability of Damage

A key aspect of the claim is that harm to the plaintiff was a foreseeable result of the false statements. The plaintiff must prove that a reasonable person would have expected that the statements would damage the plaintiff’s business, property, or economic interests. This ensures that only harmful speech that has a direct impact on a party’s interests is actionable.

Special Damages

Perhaps the most demanding element of injurious falsehood is the requirement to plead and prove special damages with particularity. This means the plaintiff must provide a detailed, specific accounting of the actual economic losses suffered as a result of the false statements. General allegations of harm or reputational damage are not enough. Courts in New York consistently dismiss claims that fail to quantify the financial harm in concrete terms.

Conclusion

Injurious falsehood claims are narrowly construed in New York. Plaintiffs must meet a high standard by showing not only that false and malicious statements were made, but also that they caused foreseeable and measurable economic harm.

Find the Law

“To establish a claim for injurious falsehood, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant maliciously made false statements with the intent to harm the plaintiff, or recklessly and without regard to their consequences, and that a reasonably prudent person would have or should have anticipated that damage to the plaintiff would result. N. State Autobahn, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Group Co., 102 AD3d 5, 20 (2d Dept 2012).” Age Grp., Ltd. v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 30981, 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

“In his cause of action alleging injurious falsehood, the plaintiff failed to allege special damages with sufficient particularity (see, Rall v Hellman, 284 AD2d 113, 114; Wasserman v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 268 AD2d 425, 426; Nyack Hasp, v Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 253 AD2d 743).” Lesesne v. Lesesne (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)