Introduction
Defamation law occupies a unique space at the intersection of personal dignity, economic interest, and public discourse. Unlike property losses or contractual forfeitures, harm to reputation is notoriously difficult to quantify, yet the outcomes can be devastating: ending careers, unravelling relationships, and changing the way individuals or institutions are perceived. Courts and juries are regularly called upon to put a price tag on reputation, but in this regard, the law offers minimal guidance besides a series of general principles codified by landmark court decisions. The result is a body of case law filled with astronomical awards, contentious appeals, and ongoing debates about how best to value what is ultimately an intangible asset.
The digital age has increased these challenges. Online platforms and social media have created a means of spreading falsehoods at an unprecedented pace and scale, propagating false information across one’s social circles, professional networks, and even to strangers across the globe. Unlike the days when defamatory statements were limited to the circulation of a newspaper or the audience of a local broadcast, today’s reputational damage can unfold exponentially, taking on a life of its own with ripple effects that are hard to predict and even harder to contain.
This helps explain why recent defamation verdicts and settlements have captured such intense public attention. High-profile and high-value defamation cases against politicians and celebrities have garnered significant media attention, thrusting the topic of defamation into the news headlines. In January 2024, for instance, a jury found Donald J. Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Jean Carroll $18.3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $65 million in punitive damages, totaling $83.3 million.
This followed a 2023 case by Carroll, which had also resulted in damages. In 2023, Rudy Giuliani was ordered to pay $148 million in damages to two Georgia election workers whom he falsely accused of voter fraud—part of efforts that also have Giuliani facing criminal charges. In other politically sensitive cases, Alex Jones—who peddled conspiracy theories and misinformation about the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut—was found liable for $1.5 billion in damages.
The media network Fox News Channel and its corporate parent, Fox Corp., recently settled a defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems, agreeing to pay $787.5 million in one of the largest ever publicly disclosed monetary settlements in the United States.4 Fox admitted it had broadcast factually incorrect statements about Dominion’s voting machines following the 2020 presidential election. Dominion had previously sought $1.6 billion in damages.
The Three Rings of Reputational Damage
Because of the elusive conceptual nature of reputation, it becomes useful to consider the various layers of relationships that determine one’s social standing. Legal scholars have rightly noted that reputation is “not a monolith but a network of perceptions held by different communities.” As such, when assessing damages, courts should consider the different levels of personal and professional associations that people maintain and how each group is affected by the defamation in question.
Although not strictly legal terminology, these “rings of relationships” help outline the scale of reputational damages, particularly as it is the hardest type of damage to calculate. In my (Somal’s) own work as an expert witness, I have used this theory to estimate damages, and my findings have helped calculate reputational damages and assist legal teams in settlements.
Read the full work in the Midwest Law Journal, VOLUME XXXV, 2025, Pages 69-90.
