Liability for Defamatory Statements:
HB 667 revises Florida’s defamation “correction, apology, or retraction” statutes for newspapers, broadcasters, and related media outlets. Under current law, a timely correction or retraction can limit a plaintiff’s recovery to actual damages; this bill adds an Internet-specific requirement that if the defamatory article or broadcast was published online, it must be permanently removed from any website controlled by the newspaper, broadcaster, or periodical within the applicable notice period in order to preserve that damages limitation.
The bill also updates media liability rules for defamatory statements published by others in a newspaper or broadcast context. It preserves immunity for owners, licensees, operators, and employees unless the complaining party proves a failure to exercise due care, and it extends the statute to online publication by providing that, after notice that a statement is false or should reasonably be believed false, failure to permanently remove the statement and related report from controlled websites can be treated as a new publication for statute-of-limitations purposes and can eliminate the fair-reporting privilege for that new publication. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 667 would amend sections 770.02 and 770.04, Florida Statutes, to impose new removal obligations on media entities that publish allegedly defamatory material online. It would affect newspapers, broadcasters, and periodicals by tying liability protections to permanent online takedown of disputed content, and it would alter how continued online availability is treated for limitations and privilege purposes. The bill would therefore expand the practical consequences of defamation claims involving digital archives and reposted content, while leaving the existing correction/retraction framework in place for print and broadcast media.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no direct evidence of detailed support or opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s introduction and committee path suggest it was considered seriously enough to be filed and heard, but it ultimately died in the Judiciary Committee on June 16, 2025. That outcome indicates the measure did not advance, though the record here does not show whether the reason was policy disagreement, constitutional concerns, or other legislative priorities.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s requirement that online defamatory content be permanently removed to preserve liability protections, which could be viewed by media organizations as burdensome, difficult to administer, or in tension with archival and First Amendment interests. Another likely issue is the provision treating continued online availability after notice as a new publication, which could extend exposure to lawsuits and affect the fair-reporting privilege. Supporters would likely frame the bill as modernizing defamation law for the internet age and giving stronger remedies to people harmed by false online reporting, while opponents would likely focus on chilling effects, operational burdens, and uncertainty for news archives and digital publishing.