Substantial Truth as a Core Defense to Libel and Defamation Claims

Not every inaccuracy supports a defamation claim. In Illinois and under general defamation principles, the question is whether a statement is substantially true—whether the “gist” or “sting” of the statement is true—rather than whether every detail is perfectly accurate. Substantial truth is therefore one of the most important defenses in libel and defamation cases.

At DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., our Defamation, Libel & Free Speech Defense Practice Group has decades of experience using substantial truth and related doctrines such as the innocent‑construction rule to defeat libel and slander claims at the motion‑to‑dismiss and summary‑judgment stages.

What Does “Substantial Truth” Mean in Practice?

A statement can be substantially true even if it contains minor inaccuracies, as long as those inaccuracies do not materially change the defamatory “sting” of what was said. In evaluating substantial truth, courts typically ask whether the challenged statement, taken as a whole and in context, would have a different effect on a reasonable reader or listener if it were stated with perfect accuracy.

Our lawyers focus on:

• The full context of the publication, including headlines, images, captions, and surrounding commentary.
• The difference, if any, between the literal words used and the underlying truth they convey.
• Whether any misstatements are minor or immaterial in light of what the audience reasonably would have understood.
• How courts have applied substantial‑truth and innocent‑construction principles in similar situations.

We then develop a record showing that, at most, the plaintiff complains about minor errors that do not change the overall truthfulness of the publication.

Substantial Truth and the Innocent Construction Rule

In Illinois, defamation law also incorporates the “innocent construction” rule, which requires courts to adopt a non‑defamatory interpretation of a statement if such an interpretation is reasonable in context. In many cases, we argue both substantial truth and innocent construction, giving courts multiple grounds to dismiss claims.

For example, a statement that arguably implies misconduct may still be non‑actionable where:

• The language fairly describes conduct that actually occurred, even if the plaintiff disputes its characterization.
• The statement reflects an opinion or conclusion drawn from disclosed facts that are themselves substantially true.
• A reasonable reader could interpret the statement in a non‑defamatory way, given the surrounding context and the audience’s likely understanding.

Investigating the Facts

The substantial‑truth defense is only as strong as the factual record behind it. We therefore:

• Conduct detailed factual investigations, including reviewing underlying documents, emails, videos, posts, and prior publications.
• Interview key witnesses and gather evidence about what occurred and how statements were understood at the time.
• Work with investigators, forensic experts, or industry specialists when necessary to confirm the underlying truth of contested events.
• Carefully compare the facts to the words used in the challenged statement to demonstrate that, at most, the plaintiff is complaining about minor differences in wording or emphasis.

Results-Oriented Use of Substantial Truth

Our goal is always to position substantial truth so that courts can rule early and decisively. We regularly:

• Move to dismiss claims that fail to allege falsity in a meaningful way or that challenge statements which are non‑actionable opinion based on disclosed, substantially true facts.
• Seek summary judgment once the factual record confirms that the core of the challenged statement is accurate, even if the plaintiff disputes minor details.
• Argue substantial truth in conjunction with other defenses such as opinion, privilege, and lack of actual malice, giving courts multiple independent reasons to reject the claims.

In a number of cases, our substantial‑truth and innocent‑construction arguments have led courts to dismiss defamation suits with prejudice, sparing our clients the burdens of trial and ongoing publicity.

Talk With Our Substantial Truth Defense Team

If you or your organization is facing a libel or defamation claim based on statements that you believe are essentially accurate, you should speak with experienced counsel about substantial truth and other defenses.

Contact attorney Peter S. Lubin or attorney James V. DiTommaso for a free consultation about your case.

Call 630-333-0333 or reach us through our online contact form.

This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting us does not create an attorney–client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.