Defamation on WeChat groups, RedNote and Chinese-language media
Reviewed by Justin Chua, principal, Chua Tan Associates · Updated 18 October 2026
Australian defamation law applies to WeChat groups, RedNote posts and Chinese-language articles in the same way as to English newspapers. To sue, you must show serious harm to your reputation, send a concerns notice first, and usually start within one year of publication. Litigation is costly and uncertain, so many of these disputes are better resolved quickly and quietly.
What you have to prove
In Victoria and NSW, a person who sues for defamation generally needs to show that:
- the material was published to at least one person other than you (a post in a WeChat group of 300 members plainly counts);
- it identifies you, by name, photo, nickname or details that readers would recognise;
- it conveys a defamatory meaning (an imputation) that would lower your reputation in the eyes of ordinary reasonable readers; and
- it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation.
Language does not change the analysis. Courts work from certified translations.
The serious harm element
For publications on or after 1 July 2021, Victoria, NSW and most other states require serious harm to reputation. A company that is entitled to sue must show serious financial loss. Serious harm is a real threshold: a rude remark in a small chat that nobody took seriously may not meet it, while a post accusing a business owner of fraud circulated across several community groups may well do so.
Concerns notice first
Before suing, you must give the publisher a written concerns notice that identifies the material and the defamatory meanings, and explains the harm. Proceedings cannot generally be started until 28 days have passed, which gives the publisher time to make an offer to make amends. A well-drafted notice often ends the matter.
Time limits
The limitation period is one year from the date of publication (for online material, from first upload). A court can extend it up to three years, but only if it was not reasonable to sue within one year.
Defences
The main defences include:
- truth (justification): the imputations are substantially true;
- honest opinion: the material is opinion, not fact, on a matter of public interest, based on proper material;
- qualified privilege: for example, a genuine warning to people with a real interest in receiving it, published reasonably;
- public interest: the matter concerns an issue of public interest and the publisher reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest.
Offers to make amends, apologies and damages
A publisher can make an offer to make amends, typically a correction or apology, removal of the post and payment of costs and sometimes compensation. If a reasonable offer is refused, it can become a defence. A prompt, sincere apology also reduces damages; a late or hollow one does little.
Damages for non-economic loss are capped. The cap is indexed each year and is reserved for the most serious cases, so most community defamation awards are far below it. Proven economic loss, such as lost business, is not capped.
Group admins, account operators and platforms
People who run a page or account can be publishers of what others post on it. In [Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2021/27.html), the High Court held that media companies were publishers of third-party comments on their Facebook pages because they had facilitated and encouraged them.
In [Lee v Sheen [2021] QDC 18](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2021/18.html), an article mostly in Simplified Chinese was posted on a law practice’s WeChat official account, which had fewer than 800 subscribers. The solicitor who ran the practice had not written it, but after receiving a concerns letter he left it up for about 19 days. The court found him liable as a publisher and awarded one plaintiff $60,000 including aggravated damages; the other plaintiffs failed because the article did not sufficiently identify them. The lessons: a small Chinese-language audience can still lead to liability, leaving material up after a complaint is risky, and identification must be proved for each person.
The Stage 2 reforms, in force in NSW and the ACT from 1 July 2024 and in Victoria from 11 September 2024, give some protection to digital intermediaries, which can include people who administer an online forum, if they have an accessible complaints process and take reasonable steps to remove the material within 7 days of a proper complaint. Courts can also order platforms that are not parties to remove material. If you run a WeChat or community group, act promptly on complaints.
Evidence: capture it now
Posts are deleted and groups disbanded quickly. Straight away:
- take full screenshots showing the post, the poster’s name and ID, the date and time, and the group name;
- record the number of group members, and screenshots of the member list where you can;
- save links, RedNote post IDs and comment threads, and screen-record scrolling through them;
- keep messages from people who mention having read it; and
- do not reply publicly in anger, which can create a counterclaim.
Cross-border publication
Publication happens where material is read or downloaded. A post written in China but read in Melbourne is published in Victoria, and an Australian court can deal with that publication. But if the poster lives in mainland China with no assets here, a judgment may be hard to enforce. Anonymous accounts also add cost, because identifying the person may need a court order against a platform that is based overseas.
In [Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2020/14.html), a woman who had no real dealings with an Adelaide barrister posted a false Google review of him, in English and Chinese. The barrister lost much of his practice, and the Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $750,000, mostly for economic loss, after the defendant did not take part. The case shows that bilingual online reviews can do measurable damage, and that economic loss must be proved with evidence.
Costs and quieter outcomes
Defamation trials are expensive and unpredictable, and even a winning plaintiff may not recover all their legal costs. In our experience most clients want the post removed, a correction and an end to the conflict. A concerns notice followed by mediation can achieve that privately, often within weeks.
How we help
Chua Tan Associates acts for people who have been defamed, and for those accused of defamation, in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. Where both sides are willing, a private resolution can be arranged through the Chinese Australian Dispute Resolution Centre (CADRC). Contact us on +61 3 9602 3988.
FAQs
Can I sue over a post in a private WeChat group?
Yes, a private group is still publication to its members, but you must still show identification, a defamatory meaning and serious harm.
How long do I have to take action?
Generally one year from publication, with a court able to extend it to a maximum of three years only in limited circumstances, and you must send a concerns notice before suing.
Am I liable as a group admin for what members post?
You may be, especially if you know about defamatory material and leave it up, so remove posts promptly after a proper complaint.
Is a screenshot enough evidence?
Screenshots are important, but they should show the date, time, poster, group name and membership, and be kept with the original links and any messages from readers.
The poster is in China. Can I still do anything?
An Australian court can deal with publication read in Australia, but enforcing a judgment in China is uncertain, so removal requests, platform complaints and mediation are often more practical.
Do I have to go to court?
No. Many matters are resolved through a concerns notice, an apology and removal, or a mediated agreement.
Talk to us about your matter
Book a confidential consultation in English, Mandarin or Cantonese, or call +61 3 9602 3988.
Book a consultation
General information only, not legal advice. Every matter turns on its own facts. Reviewed by Justin Chua, principal, Chua Tan Associates.
简体中文 
English (Australia) 
繁體中文