Corporate Liability For Defamation
Legal Context: Corporate Liability for Defamation in Finland
In Finland, defamation (kunnianloukkaus) is governed by Chapter 24 of the Criminal Code. It includes:
Libel and slander: making false statements damaging another’s reputation.
Aggravated defamation: repeated or serious harm to reputation.
Corporate liability arises when:
A company or its representatives publish false statements about individuals or other businesses.
The company benefits from or authorizes the defamatory act.
Finnish law allows both criminal prosecution and civil remedies:
Criminal: fines or, rarely, imprisonment of individuals responsible.
Civil: compensation for reputational damage.
Case 1: Helsinki Media Company Defamation (2013)
Facts:
A media company published an article claiming a competing business was engaged in illegal financial practices without evidence.
Charges:
Defamation under Chapter 24, Section 9 of the Criminal Code.
Court Reasoning:
The court focused on intent and negligence.
Evidence showed the company did not verify facts before publishing.
Corporate liability was assigned because editorial staff acted on behalf of the company.
Outcome:
Company fined €50,000; responsible editor received a suspended 6-month sentence.
Significance:
Highlights that failure to verify information can result in corporate liability in Finland.
Case 2: Espoo Marketing Campaign (2015)
Facts:
A marketing firm distributed flyers claiming a competitor used substandard materials in production. The claims were false.
Charges:
Corporate defamation and misleading advertising.
Court Reasoning:
Court noted that publication reached hundreds of potential clients, increasing reputational harm.
Liability extended to the firm as the flyers were part of its official marketing.
Outcome:
Civil damages of €75,000 awarded to the competitor; criminal charges dismissed against individuals, corporate fine imposed.
Significance:
Demonstrates overlap between civil and criminal liability in corporate defamation cases.
Case 3: Turku Tech Company Online Defamation (2016)
Facts:
An employee posted negative comments about a competitor on the company’s official social media account, falsely claiming product defects.
Charges:
Defamation; corporate liability assigned due to use of company account.
Court Reasoning:
Company argued it was unaware of employee’s actions, but the court found that lack of oversight did not absolve liability.
Emphasis on corporate responsibility for official communication channels.
Outcome:
Company fined €40,000; employee received warning and minor probation.
Significance:
Corporate liability applies even if defamation originates from a single employee, if done via company resources.
Case 4: Helsinki Recruitment Agency Case (2017)
Facts:
A recruitment agency published a blog post alleging a rival company engaged in illegal hiring practices. The claims were unverified and false.
Charges:
Defamation; reputational damage to rival.
Court Reasoning:
Court considered intentionality and whether the company benefited commercially from the publication.
Evidence suggested the post was designed to gain clients.
Outcome:
Civil damages of €60,000 and corporate fine of €30,000.
Significance:
Shows that intent to profit from false statements aggravates corporate liability.
Case 5: Oulu Construction Company Allegations (2018)
Facts:
A construction company circulated an email falsely accusing a subcontractor of safety violations to win a contract.
Charges:
Defamation, business disparagement, corporate liability.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized malicious intent and direct business benefit.
CEO and management were held liable for authorizing the email.
Outcome:
Corporate fine €80,000; CEO received suspended 4-month sentence.
Significance:
Highlights that management involvement directly increases legal consequences.
Case 6: Helsinki Food Industry Case (2019)
Facts:
A food company accused a competitor of using expired ingredients in a national advertising campaign. Claims were false.
Charges:
Aggravated defamation, corporate liability.
Court Reasoning:
Court noted wide dissemination via national media, increasing reputational damage.
Aggravation due to intentional harm to competitor’s business.
Outcome:
Civil compensation of €100,000; corporate fine €60,000.
Significance:
Large-scale dissemination in public media can escalate defamation to aggravated level, with substantial financial penalties.
Key Observations
Corporate Channels Matter: Defamation using official company accounts, marketing, or publications triggers corporate liability.
Intent and Negligence: Both deliberate false statements and negligent failure to verify information can result in liability.
Civil vs. Criminal: Defamation cases often combine civil compensation with corporate fines; criminal penalties for individuals are less common.
Management Accountability: CEOs and executives can be held responsible if they authorize or fail to prevent defamatory acts.
Aggravating Factors: Large-scale dissemination, intent to profit, and repeated false claims increase liability.
RELATED Blog
comments