Russia Media Law Guide

RUSSIA MEDIA LAW GUIDE

Defamation and Privacy Law in Russia

Last updated – 17 June 2026

Contributors: Maria Ostashenko (Partner) and Ilya Khodakov (Senior Associate), Alrud Law Firm

Russian remedies against defamation are based on both criminal and civil laws.

The key regulations with regard to privacy and defamation are the following:

• Constitution of the Russian Federation (Art. 23 – the right to protect honour and good name)
• Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Art. 152 – protection against dissemination of false and discrediting information about an individual or legal entity, Art 152.1 – the right to protect personal image, Art2 – the right to protect private life)
• Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Art. 128.1 – criminal liability for slander; Art. 137 – criminal liability for invasion of privacy; 272.1 – criminal liability for unlawful use, transfer, collection or storage of computer information containing personal data, as well as for creating or operating resources intended for unlawful storage or dissemination of such information; Art. 280.3, Art. 297, Art. 298.1, Art. 319. – criminal liability for certain reputation-related or speech-related offences involving public authorities, courts, officials and the Russian armed forces)

In 2025, criminal cases involving non‑qualified defamation under Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code (by contrast with qualified, or aggravated forms of defamation) were reclassified from private prosecution to private‑public prosecution. Such cases are still initiated on the basis of a victim’s complaint; however, they are no longer subject to mandatory termination upon reconciliation of the parties.

• Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (Art. 13.11 – liability for violations of data protection legislation, 11.3 – liability for violations relating to biometric personal data, Art. 5.61.1 – liability of legal entities for defamation)
• Federal Law dated July 27, 2006 No. 152-FZ “On Personal Data” (“Personal Data Law”) (the principal law in the area of privacy)
• Federal Law dated July 27, 2006 No. 149-FZ “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information” (“Law on Information”) (mechanisms for restricting access to illegal information, including restrictions on access to certain defamatory information. Administrative fines for dissemination of so-called “fake news” are established under Art. 13.15 of the Code of Administrative Offences and vary depending on the offender and consequences, reaching up to RUB 10,000,000 (approx. 120,650 EUR) for legal entities in case of repeated offences).

It is also worth mentioning that decisions of the Constitutional Court, of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and of the European Court of Human Rights are important for both criminal and civil regulations regarding defamation.

One of the most significant case law in the area of defamation and privacy is the Resolution No.3 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia dated 24 February 2005, No. 3., as amended on 9 December 2025. The 2025 amendments updated certain references to international law but did not materially affect the core provisions relevant to defamation disputes. Among other things, this Resolution establishes that a person who has suffered from dissemination of the false and defamatory information is entitled to file criminal and civil cases simultaneously.

Another key precedent is the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia dd. 25.05.2021 No. 22-P which allowed patients’ publications of  reviews about medical professionals and quality of medical care provided by them, at the same time obliging owners of websites hosting such reviews to moderate evaluative comments that defame the honor, dignity or business reputation of medical professionals.

There is also the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia dd. 15.11.2022 No. 33 which prescribes general rules on compensation for moral harm suffered by individuals, including in defamation cases.

Criminal liability applies only to individuals (not legal entities). However, certain officials of the company that disseminated defamatory information can be brought to criminal liability, if their fault in the dissemination of the false and defamatory information is proved.

Procedural Issues in Defamation Cases

Limitation period

As a rule, the limitation period does not apply to the protection of intangible assets (such as honour, dignity and reputation). In this regard, the period for filing a defamation civil lawsuit claiming moral damages is not limited. However, there is a one-year limitation period for claims based on the dissemination of false information (of any kind) in the mass media.

As for criminal law, a person is released from liability for libel or unlawful invasion of privacy upon expiry of the applicable limitation period: two years for offences of minor gravity and six years for offences of medium gravity. Accordingly, the two‑year period applies to non‑qualified offences, while qualified forms of libel or unlawful invasion of privacy may be subject to a six‑year limitation period.

The constitutive elements of defamation

In order to build a civil case, the following elements must be shown:

• Dissemination of information about a person

This means that the information in question should be communicated in any form to at least one person, aside from a claimant. For example, information can be published on the Internet or in the mass media, or included in job reviews, public speech, statements addressed to officers.

Moreover, in practice, it is necessary to show that the information in question is a statement of fact in which a person alleges information as objective fact of reality, without any subjective evaluation of such fact.

According to Russian procedural law, if the case requires special knowledge, the court may need to appoint an expert. In case of claims for defamation, Russian courts frequently appoint linguistic expertise to assess whether expression of opinion took place rather than a statement of fact.

• The disseminated information must be discrediting

According to the position of the Supreme Court of Russia, discrediting information is information that contains statements about the claimant and the claimant’s conduct impairing  the claimant’s honour, dignity or reputation (such as violation of law; non-ethical or abusive behaviour; social and political life; unfair practices conducted in entrepreneurial or business activities; or breach of business ethics or business practices).

The Constitutional Court of Russia has further clarified that statements alleging a person’s violation of rules of conduct accepted in a relevant community may be regarded as discrediting, especially where the alleged violation is accompanied by a negative assessment in the form of liability or another sanction. The Court also noted that the perception of such information as accurate, and its impact on third parties’ assessment of the reprehensibility of the person’s conduct, may be reinforced where the information comes from an authoritative source, such as an employer or its authorised representative. In particular, information disseminated on behalf of an employer about an employee’s disciplinary misconduct and the disciplinary sanction imposed may be regarded as defamatory.

• Information must be inaccurate

Inaccuracy of the distributed information is presumed. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the contrary in court.

Burden of proof

Russian law establishes a reverse burden of proof for defamation cases. This means that the claimant should prove the following facts:

• Dissemination of information about the claimant in the form of a statement of fact
• The fact that the disseminated information is discrediting.

Once these points have been established, the defendant must prove that the published information is accurate.

Defences

The principal defence is to prove that the published information is accurate.

Russian procedural legislation and court practice requires providing very straightforward evidence (e.g. official documents), that would prove the accuracy of the statement.

An alternative defence is to prove that the information is a statement of opinion. In practice, the main sign of an opinion (not statement of fact) is the usage of special modal words such as “in my opinion”, “I think”, “possibly”, “highly likely” and so on.
Moreover, the information contained in the appeals to the competent authorities for protection of rights is exempted from the application of Art. 152 of the Civil Code. In practice, this means that the relevant information can be sourced in documents such as reports of a crime, complaints, applications, appeals, which are submitted to the competent authorities in order to protect the rights and legitimate interests.

No jury

Neither defamation nor privacy trials involve a jury. Generally, such cases are heard by a single judge of the general jurisdiction (in the case of a dispute between individuals) or the commercial court (in the case of a dispute between legal entities/ individual entrepreneurs).

Remedies for Defamation

According to the Russian law, the following remedies can be applied in defamation disputes:

• Take down of the defamatory information

In practice, take down means that only specific sentences are removed, while the remaining text is still available. This is, however, a positive outcome, since without defamatory sentences, the may lose its internal connections and it may be difficult to understand the author’s idea.

In the meantime, courts usually do not satisfy the claims requesting to fully delete an article, because in order to obtain this remedy, it is necessary to prove that every single sentence discredits the claimant.

• The right to publish a rebuttal

The court may also order that the claimant’s text with counter arguments is published in the same newspaper, media outlet or on the same website, where applicable.

• Monetary compensation: payment of damages and compensation for moral harm

According to law enforcement practice of Russian courts, if harm is caused by the dissemination of information discrediting the honour, dignity and business reputation of a citizen, the presence of moral harm is assumed. In these cases, compensation for moral harm shall be recovered by the court regardless of the fault of the wrongdoer. Please note that under the Russian law, moral harm can be caused only to individuals. Legal entities cannot claim compensation for moral harm. The same approach applies to individual entrepreneurs when they seek protection of their business reputation in that capacity, although the underlying individual may claim moral harm if other personal non‑property rights or intangible benefits are affected.

Compensation for moral harm may also be recovered by the court in cases of dissemination of information about a citizen, both accurate and inaccurate, which is not discrediting citizen’s honour, dignity, business reputation, but the dissemination of this information has caused a violation of other personal non-property rights or intangible benefits belonging to a citizen (for example, information relating to personal or family secrets).

When determining the amount of compensation for moral harm courts take into account, in particular, the content of the defamatory information and its gravity in the public consciousness, the manner and duration of dissemination of untrue information, the degree of its influence on the formation of negative public opinion about the injured person, the extent to which dignity, social standing or business reputation have been affected, the moral and physical suffering of the plaintiff, other negative consequences for a person, the identity of the plaintiff, his social status, position, individual characteristics (for example, health status).

When demanding a payment of damages, a legal entity or an individual entrepreneur shall also prove before the court the following circumstances:

• the presence of a formed reputation in a particular area of business relations (such as industry, business, services, education, etc.);
• adverse consequences for the legal entity or the individual entrepreneur as a result of the dissemination of defamatory information;
• loss or decrease of trust in the reputation of the legal entity or the individual entrepreneur.

As a rule, damages (including moral harm) awarded by the Russian courts as a compensation for defamation are fairly low.

Russian judges are reluctant to award high compensation for moral harm not only in defamation claims, but also in general, seemingly considering moral distress not to be significant. Therefore, the average amount of compensation for moral harm is rarely more than a sum in the region of EUR 2,000-3,000.

In the meantime, there are certain exceptional cases where companies are awarded significant amount of damages in defamation cases. A striking example here is Alfa Bank v. Kommersant case.

In 2004, Kommersant, a respected Russian media, published an article named “Banking Crisis Took to the Streets. Systemically Important Banks Faced Clients”. In this article, Kommersant compared the financial condition of Alfa Bank with that of bankrupt Guta Bank, and described – colourfully – the numerous queues of Alfa Bank depositors unsuccessfully trying to withdraw their deposits. This publication caused panic among Alfa Bank depositors who hastened to withdraw their deposits, which ultimately resulted in significant damages for Alfa Bank. Alfa Bank filed a claim under the Art. 152 of the Russian Civil Code against Kommersant, and won in the Russian courts.

The courts of first and appeal instances recovered damages in amount of RUB 300 million (approx. EUR 8,500,000 based on the exchange rates of 2004), which is a huge amount for Russian court practice. However, the court of cassation appeal eventually reduced this amount “taking into account the requirements of reasonableness and justice” to RUB 30 million (approx. EUR 850,000 based on the exchange rates of 2004). This is still a significant amount for Russian cases.

Website takedown

Apart from remedies available at trial, some alternative remedies can be used in enforcement proceedings. More specifically, access to a website contenting defamatory information can be blocked on the basis of a request to data protection authority (Roskomnadzor), which is to be made at the stage where the successful party enforces the decision of the court given in defamation proceedings.

Separately, Russian law provides for a special out-of-court mechanism enabling individuals to seek the removal and blocking of certain false defamatory information connected with accusations of a criminal offence, by submitting an application to a prosecutor, followed by the involvement of the Prosecutor General’s Office and Roskomnadzor.

Related Data Protection Regulations

In addition to the remedies under Russian civil and criminal laws related to the protection of reputation, individuals are entitled to protect their rights by using tools available under Russian personal data protection legislation.

Key data subjects’ rights

it comes to the protection of reputation.

• Right to withdraw the consent to An individual has the right to revoke consent for personal data processing at any time. After receipt of such a request, a data controller whose processing activities are based on consent shall stop processing and destroy the personal data (or ensure their destruction) within 30 days.
• Right to access personal data. A data subject is entitled to request from the data controller the confirmation of processing by that data controller and a range of details regarding data processing activities (e.g., categories of data processed, purposes of processing, et.). If the data subject requests, they should be provided with the copy of personal data.
• Right to require rectification, blocking and destruction of personal data in case personal data is incomplete, inaccurate, outdated, unlawfully processed or no longer needed to achieve the specific purpose of data processing.
• Right to lodge a complaint to Roskomnadzor, court or other authorities. According to Roskomnadzor’s 2025 report, Roskomnadzor received 94,833 submissions on the protection of data subjects’ rights in 2025, which is 24% more than in 2024. Of these, 4,141 citizens requested clarifications of certain provisions of the Personal Data Law, 6,738 requested clarifications on issues relating to the register of personal data controllers, and 80,083 submitted complaints about the unlawful use of their personal data.

Recent amendments have tightened Russian data localisation requirements: when collecting personal data of Russian citizens, certain operations involving databases located outside Russia are restricted.

Available remedies for misuse of personal data

If a data subject decides to lodge a complaint in order to protect their reputation, they may rely on several remedies prescribed by the Personal Data Law and the Law on Information, which are described below.

• Deletion of information and destruction of mediums. In case of unlawful processing of personal data, an individual may request blocking of unlawfully processed personal data for the period of verification and, where the lawfulness of processing cannot be ensured, destruction of such personal data, including personal data processed in information systems or stored on material media.
• Blocking of the web-resource (website, mobile app). When personal data is unlawfully processed online, data subject may claim for blocking of the respective resource. Such decision shall be made by the court. The respective resource may be included into special registers maintained by Roskomnadzor.

Payment of damages for moral harm. Individuals are entitled to claim compensation of moral harm, which is caused by unlawful processing of their personal data. Such compensation may be received regardless of recovering material damages or losses. In practice, the amount of such compensation is usually quite low, so this remedy does not allow to ensure proper protection of individuals’ reputation.

Right to be forgotten

Under Russian Information Law, there is also a so-called “right to be forgotten”, which was introduced by the Federal Law dated July 13, 2015 No. 264-FZ (which came into effect on January 1, 2016). This law provides individuals with an opportunity to file a request with a search engine (e.g. Google, Yandex, etc.) to disable access to links leading to information about that individual where such information is disseminated in violation of Russian law, is inaccurate, or is no longer relevant / has lost significance for the individual due to subsequent events or the individual’s own actions.

The right can be exercised solely by individuals with respect to their personal data and other information relating to them. It may also be used in cases where it is necessary to execute a court decision on blocking of illegally distributed or placed information.

An individual has a right to send the request in one of the following scenarios:

• the information is disseminated in violation of Russian laws
• the information is false/inaccurate
• the information becomes irrelevant or has lost significance for the individual due to subsequent events/actions of this individual, except for information on events containing elements of criminally punishable acts where the limitation period has not expired, and information on a crime committed by the individual where the conviction has not been expunged or spent.

A search engine examines the request with clarifications and must respond within 10 business days, either delisting the URLs complained of or refusing the request. An individual can appeal such refusal to the court in order to force the search engine to delist the relevant URLs.

Contributors: Maria Ostashenko (Partner) and Ilya Khodakov (Senior Associate)

ALRUD Law Firm

Lesnaya St., 7, 12th floor

Moscow

Russia, 125196

The material in this Guide is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.