Damages awarded for insults

Short answer

Yes, being unjustifiably called a “fraud” on Facebook may entitle you to claim non-pecuniary damages. This does not, however, mean an automatic entitlement to a particular amount: the court considers the entire post, the factual basis for the accusation, the manner of expression, and the purpose and extent of publication.

In the Estonian cases examined, awards for “fraud”, “fraudster” and similar accusations have included 300, 400, 600, 750, 1000 and 2000 euros. These are neither tariffs nor minimum or maximum compensation amounts. In some other cases, even quite offensive expressions have resulted in no compensation because they were considered lawful criticism in their particular context.

Legal costs can be much higher than the compensation. For example:

• in one case, 2678.50 euros in procedural costs were added to a 300-euro compensation award;
• 3225 euros in reimbursement of procedural costs were added to a 2000-euro compensation award;
• in another case, an unsuccessful claimant had to pay the opposing party 10 047.44 euros in procedural costs.

Below, I distinguish between compensation, procedural costs, pre-litigation legal assistance and default interest.

Important limitation: a court decision shows what the court awarded, not necessarily what the person actually paid. Actual payment, all amounts paid to a person's own lawyer and any enforcement costs generally cannot be established from the decisions. Nor has it been separately confirmed that all County Court judgments have become final. I rely on Estonian law as at 5.10.2026 and indicate the outcomes of appeals found.

1. When does an insult entitle someone to compensation?

Statements of fact and value judgments are different

A statement of fact describes something verifiable: for example, “he took my money and did not provide the promised goods” or “he emptied another person's bank account”. A person publishing a statement of fact that defames another person must generally prove that it is true. A legitimate interest and sufficiently careful verification of the circumstances may also preclude the unlawfulness of publication. The basis is VÕS § 1047 subsections 1–3.

A value judgment expresses an assessment of a person or their conduct: for example, “p**vert”, “monster” or, in certain contexts, “fraud”. The truth of a judgment cannot be proved in the same way, but it must have a reasonable basis, and the manner of expression must not be unjustifiably degrading. The court also weighs freedom of expression, the public interest and the motivation for the judgment. The basis is VÕS § 1046 subsections 1 and 2.

“Fraud” does not always fall into the same category. General labelling may be a value judgment; in a description of a specific financial dispute, the same word may contain a verifiable accusation. Among other things, this determines whether a retraction of the statement can be sought.

Feeling offended alone is not enough, but emotional harm need not be proved in euros

The claimant must prove the circumstances on which the claim is based: what was published, whom it concerned and who published it. The unlawfulness of the infringement and the other requirements for liability must then be assessed. The legal basis is primarily VÕS § 1043, § 1045 subsection 1 clause 4 and § 1050 subsection 1.

Once liability for an unlawful infringement of a personality right has been established, a reasonable monetary sum must be paid. The claimant then need not separately prove the monetary value of emotional suffering or necessarily prove damage to health. However, the amount of compensation is influenced by the consequences proved, the severity and extent of the infringement, and the publisher's subsequent conduct. This is provided for in VÕS § 134 subsections 2, 5 and 6.

The Supreme Court emphasised this in its judgment of 23.03.2023 in 2-21-5449/19, point 15: an apology may reduce compensation, but does not automatically eliminate the obligation to pay monetary compensation. The subsequent outcome of that case was a 500-euro compensation award, which I discuss below.

2. Quick overview of amounts

This is a selection of the cases discussed in more detail below. The totals do not include default interest accruing subsequently or the payer's own lawyer's fees.

3. Cases involving the labels “fraud”, “fraudster”, “swindler” or “thief”

1. “Fraud and swindler” on Facebook: 300 € in compensation, 650 € including costs

Pärnu County Court judgment of 01.10.2020 in 2-19-19240/64, points 1–3.

After communication on Facebook broke off, the defendant published a post bearing another person's name and photograph, calling them a fraud and swindler and accusing them of borrowing money and making threats. The claimant considered the accusations fabricated and requested compensation at the court's discretion, suggesting that approximately 3500 euros would be appropriate.

This was a default judgment: the defendant did not respond to the claim, and the claimant's factual allegations were deemed admitted under the procedural rules. It is therefore not an example of the same weight as a thoroughly contested dispute over evidence.

The court awarded 300 euros, taking into account, among other things, the post's limited duration and readership. 350 euros in procedural costs were awarded, bringing the total to 650 euros. The example confirms that compensation is possible, but not that every use of “fraud” requires a payment of 300 euros.

2. “Vulgar fraud”, “fraud and swindler” and emptying bank accounts: 3442 € for two people

Tartu County Court judgment of 02.11.2021 in 2-21-3574/20, points 11–20.

The defendant referred to one person online as a “vulgar fraud” and accused two people of emptying the bank accounts of grandparents with dementia. Both claimants asked the court to determine compensation; at the hearing, they considered 2000 euros each appropriate.

The court distinguished unfounded derogatory judgments from the specific accusation of emptying the accounts. The truth of the latter was not proved. At the same time, not all the derogatory remarks used in the comments were considered sufficiently clearly directed at a particular claimant.

One claimant was awarded 1000 euros, the other 700 euros. They were also awarded 1742 euros in procedural costs: a total of 3442 euros, plus default interest.

An important difference from a simple insult: here, calling someone a fraud was accompanied by a serious and specific accusation of financial exploitation.

3. “Fraud” on Facebook alongside accusations of drug dealing, car theft and being an informant: 1000 €

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 21.10.2022 in 2-20-12279/31, points 11.2–11.4.

Against the background of a personal conflict, the claimant's name and photograph were published alongside accusations of secret drug dealing, stealing cars and being a police informant; the claimant was also called a devious and greedy fraud. The post was proved to have been shared 308 times.

The County Court had awarded 2000 euros, but the Circuit Court reduced the compensation to 1000 euros. The accusations remained unlawful, but their actual reach could not be calculated simply by multiplying the number of shares by the number of the sharers' friends. The removal of the post and the absence of further similar infringements were also taken into account.

The false information also had to be retracted on Facebook. The defendant was liable for the County Court procedural costs, while the parties bore their own appeal costs. The final amount of reimbursable County Court costs is not apparent from this decision, so a complete total cannot be stated.

4. “Fraud”, “swindler”, “thief” and “psychopath” on a forum after losing a wage dispute: 2572 €

Harju County Court judgment of 12.01.2023 in 2-22-7217/29, points 6.1–7.

The defendant accused the claimant on a maritime forum and in an email sent to third parties of failing to pay wages, calling the claimant a fraud, swindler, thief and psychopath. However, an earlier court dispute had already established that there was no employment relationship, and the claim for remuneration had been dismissed.

In this particular wage-dispute context, the court treated “fraud”, “swindler” and “thief” as statements of fact, and “psychopath” as an inappropriate value judgment. Nevertheless, it was not established that all the derogatory terms used in a general list referred to the claimant.

The claimant considered 3000 euros appropriate but requested an amount at the court's discretion. The court awarded 600 euros and 1972 euros in procedural costs: a total of 2572 euros, plus default interest.

This shows why the legal meaning of the word “fraud” cannot be determined without the background to the accusation.

5. “Dangerous fraud”, “serial fraudster”, “the devil's grandmother” on Facebook: 400 €, but the claimant ended up financially worse off

Tartu County Court judgment of 08.05.2026 in 2-24-19523/14, points 8.2–8.3 and 11–14.

Following a family property dispute, a Facebook post was published using several derogatory labels. The court found that the judgments were unfounded, mocking and inappropriate.

The claimant sought a fixed amount of 5000 euros. The court awarded 400 euros, because the amount claimed was not proportionate to the intensity of the infringement.

The outcome was particularly instructive in terms of costs:

• the claimant's state fee was 560 euros;
• only 44.80 euros of it was reimbursed by the defendant;
• the claimant had to bear 515.20 euros personally.

The amount awarded against the defendant was therefore 444.80 euros, but the claimant's calculated result after the fee they had to bear personally was −115.20 euros.

A finding that an insult was unlawful does not guarantee financially beneficial litigation, particularly where an excessively large fixed-sum claim is made.

6. “Debtor” and “fraudster” on Facebook, although the contract was between businesses: 750 € + 930 € for pre-litigation legal assistance

Harju County Court judgment of 26.06.2026 in 2-25-18522/26, points 14.1–14.2, 21 and 29–47.

In a dispute over stove-building work, posts were repeatedly published calling a natural person a debtor and fraudster and including their photograph. The actual contract for work was, however, between two businesses; the dispute concerned defects in the work and payment.

The court found that the posts gave a misleading impression of the person's personal debt. The “debtor” allegation was a false statement of fact, and there was no reasonable basis for describing the person as a fraudster. Repetition, publication in large groups and the absence of remorse increased the seriousness of the infringement.

The awards were:

• 750 euros in non-pecuniary damages;
• 930 euros in pecuniary damages for justified pre-litigation lawyer's fees.

The total was 1680 euros before litigation costs. The defendant was also liable for procedural costs, but their amount was to be determined later.

A business debt dispute does not automatically justify personally calling its representative a fraudster.

7. “The President awarded a decoration to a fraud” and other accusations: 2000 €, or 5225 € including net cost reimbursement

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 02.12.2019 in 2-18-17361/40, points 17–27.

A spokesperson for a public campaign was called a fraud, their activities were described as deceiving consumers and brainwashing, and they were compared to a child molester. The defendant justified the statements by reference to the campaign's misleading nature and political freedom of expression.

The court found that even possible ambiguity in the campaign's meaning did not justify labelling the spokesperson in that way. Being a politician did not confer an unlimited right to humiliate another person.

The 2000-euro compensation award was upheld. By contrast, the claim for retraction of the judgments was not granted, because they were value judgments rather than statements of fact capable of retraction.

Procedural costs were allocated 75%/25%; after accounting for the parties' reciprocal cost reimbursements, the defendant had to pay the claimant 3225 euros. Compensation and net cost reimbursement together amounted to 5225 euros, plus default interest and each party's own unreimbursed costs.

8. “The fraud is at it again!!!”: no monetary compensation was awarded because it was no longer sought

Supreme Court judgment of 28.04.2021 in 2-18-17980/127, points 1 and 17–22; the preceding Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 25.09.2020 in 2-18-17980/94.

A public Facebook post warned against transferring money to a person and alleged that they were not connected with a grassroots campaign. The combined effect of the text and image created an implied statement of fact that the person had no connection with the campaign.

The claimant had initially also sought damages, but later retained only the retraction claim. Consequently, the absence of compensation in this case does not prove that calling someone a “fraud” cannot justify compensation.

The lower courts regarded “fraud” as an inappropriate value judgment. On cassation, the Supreme Court examined the statement of fact concerning the connection with the campaign and upheld the obligation to retract it.

The parties bore their own costs in the lower courts. In the Supreme Court, the defendant was ordered to pay 421.20 euros in state legal aid costs into state revenue; the overall cost burden is not apparent from that amount.

4. Other insults for which compensation was awarded

9. “Super-duper celebrity wh**e”: 300 € in compensation, known amount including costs and default interest to date 3020.84 €

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 06.09.2022 in 2-20-17805/31, points 12–18 and 20–28.

A sexually degrading comment was posted beneath an online news story covering a birthday party. The comment's author died, and the claim was brought against the heir.

The County Court had dismissed the claim, but the Circuit Court explained that the monetary obligation to compensate for damage may pass to an heir. The comment was vulgar and unjustifiably degrading; coverage of a public figure's birthday did not entitle someone to make it.

Compensation amounted to 300 euros. In determining the amount, the court also considered the removal of the comment, the brief attention received by the news story and the fact that the heir was not the author of the insult.

A further 2678.50 euros in procedural costs and 42.34 euros in default interest calculated up to judgment were awarded. The total was 3020.84 euros, with default interest continuing to accrue. This is a striking example of procedural costs exceeding compensation by almost nine times.

10. “Crazy, as if mentally unhinged”: 200 €; “I would not trust her” remained permissible criticism

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 08.09.2020 in 2-19-11282/25, points 33–39.

An online comment about a children's sex-education trainer combined disparagement of her mental state with the judgment “I would not trust her”.

The court distinguished between these parts. The disparagement directed at her mental state was inappropriate, but expressing distrust formed on the basis of a television programme was a relevant critical opinion.

The claimant considered at least 700 euros appropriate but sought compensation at the court's discretion. 200 euros was upheld, plus default interest. Extensive destruction of reputation and specific lost earnings were not proved.

Each party bore their own procedural costs in both court instances. Thus, the 200 euros was not accompanied here by reimbursement of the opposing party's lawyer's fees, although each party's own costs may have exceeded the compensation.

11. “P**vert auntie. The children will suffer lifelong psychological trauma”: 300 € instead of 75 €

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 31.08.2021 in 2-20-5518/31, points 10–12.

The two sentences quoted above were published on Facebook beneath a video featuring a trainer. The defendant argued, among other things, that “p**vert” meant a silly person to them.

The Circuit Court proceeded from how a reasonable reader would understand the expression, rather than from the author's later explanation. The two sentences had to be read together: the second attributed serious consequences to the activities of the person disparaged in the first.

The 75 euros awarded by the County Court was considered manifestly symbolic, and compensation was increased to 300 euros, plus default interest. Among other things, the court took into account that the comment had been accessible for approximately two years.

The defendant was liable for procedural costs in both instances, but their monetary amount was not determined in this judgment. The total including costs is therefore unknown.

12. “Horrible monster! Is she not of sound mind and crazy in the head…”: 300 € + 2042 € in costs

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 13.10.2020 in 2-19-15896/56, points 11–21.

A trainer was disparaged in a Facebook group, with some of the insults phrased as questions. The County Court awarded 200 euros but did not consider all the expressions unlawful.

The Circuit Court assessed the words together. “Crazy in the head” may be mild teasing in some situations, but together with “horrible monster” and “not of sound mind”, it constituted a degrading judgment about mental state. Phrasing it as a question did not eliminate liability.

Compensation was increased to 300 euros, and the defendant was made liable for all procedural costs. A subsequent order of 02.02.2022 in 2-19-15896/68, points 9.1–9.3, left 2042 euros in procedural costs reimbursable.

The total was 2342 euros, plus default interest. The claimant nevertheless did not recover all their legal assistance costs, because the list of costs for one court instance was not submitted on time.

13. “P***ophiles have their rights too!”: 600 € + 1960 € in costs

Harju County Court judgment of 01.07.2022 in 2-21-19989/20, points 7.1–7.3.

The quoted comment was published beneath a news story concerning a trainer. The defendant argued that it was a general observation or a response to another commenter.

The court found that, in the context of the article, a reasonable reader would understand that the label referred to the trainer. There was no basis for portraying the trainer as a p***ophile. The court took into account publication on a nationwide portal, the evidence submitted concerning health and professional activities, and the absence of a genuine apology.

The claimant considered at least 2000 euros appropriate but requested an amount at the court's discretion. The court awarded 600 euros and 1960 euros in procedural costs: a total of 2560 euros, plus default interest.

The example emphasises that the absence of a name from a comment does not exclude liability if the context makes its subject identifiable.

14. “Her wallet is between her legs”: 500 € following Supreme Court intervention

Supreme Court judgment of 23.03.2023 in 2-21-5449/19, points 10–15, and the new Harju County Court judgment of 11.10.2023 in 2-21-5449/27, points 14–17.

The expression published beneath an article covering a birthday party was treated as an implied assertion that the person's financial resources were connected to the intimate use of their body.

The claim was initially dismissed. The Supreme Court set aside both lower-court judgments: the courts had to assess the implied statement of fact correctly and could not rule out compensation simply because of an apology or a failure to prove serious consequences.

On reconsideration, the County Court awarded 500 euros, plus default interest. It took into account the insulting content and public dissemination, but also the failure to prove specific professional harm and the defendant's financial circumstances.

The defendant was liable for procedural costs, the final amount of which was to be determined separately. The full total including costs is therefore unknown.

15. “Ugly man” and “Quasimodo”: 100 €, with a sincere apology reducing the amount

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 25.11.2022 in 2-22-3041/18, points 9–13.

In a political discussion on Facebook, the appearance of a person who had left a political party was mocked, and he was compared to a literary character. The defendant promptly apologised both at the original place of publication and in a Facebook group.

The County Court had awarded no compensation and ordered the claimant to pay 1800 euros in the defendant's costs. The Circuit Court changed the outcome: mocking the person's appearance was inappropriate, but the sincere apology reduced reasonable compensation.

The awards were 100 euros and 5.94 euros in default interest up to judgment. The claimant's claim for 384 euros in pre-litigation legal assistance was dismissed because actual expenditure was not proved.

The previous 1800-euro cost obligation was set aside, and the parties bore their own costs in both instances. The known amount awarded was 105.94 euros, plus further default interest.

16. An obscene distortion of a surname on Facebook: 200 €, or 874.93 € including fees and default interest to date

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 31.03.2022 in 2-20-13076/21, points 8.3–8.7, 11.2 and 13–14.

A Facebook post referred to a person twice using an obscene distortion of their surname that alluded to a sexual organ. The court did not consider this permissible satire or justified criticism of their activities.

The person's status as a public figure did not oblige them to tolerate such abuse. At the same time, actual attention to the post was limited: there were few reactions and comments, and it was not repeated defamation.

The awards were 200 euros, 24.93 euros in default interest up to judgment and 650 euros in reimbursement of state fees: a total of 874.93 euros, with default interest continuing to accrue.

The parties bore their own other legal assistance costs, partly because the claim also included another part of the dispute that proved unfounded. Recovery of all costs is not automatic even when compensation is awarded.

5. Directly sent insults and harassment can also result in compensation

17. Mass text messages saying “cunning fraud”, “thieves”, “b**tard”, together with other harassment: 500 € each

Tallinn Circuit Court order of 30.04.2026 in 2-24-7367/65, points 14–17 and 21–23.

In a financial dispute between neighbours over construction work, large numbers of insulting text messages and emails were sent, and calls were made at night. On one occasion, 29 calls were made within 43 minutes. The conduct was accompanied by other disruptive acts, including turning off the water supply.

The court emphasised that even a possible right to demand payment of a debt did not justify such interference with private life. A three-year restriction on communication was upheld, with an exception for one email communication channel.

Each victim was awarded 500 euros, a total of 1000 euros. The parties bore their own County Court costs, and the Circuit Court awarded 186 euros in costs: a total of 1186 euros.

This is not 500 euros for one text message or one insult. The compensation concerned long-term harassment considered as a whole. In the case of directly sent messages, the right protected may also be privacy, not just reputation in the eyes of third parties.

6. When was no compensation awarded, or an earlier award set aside?

18. “Sh**bag” in a Facebook fishing group: 0 €, with the claimant liable for 2450 € in the opposing party's costs

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 31.10.2022 in 2-21-760/27, points 47–55.

A fishing group discussed illegal fishing by a public advocate for recreational fishing, and the quoted word was used about him. Unlike the County Court, the Circuit Court found that the comment was indeed about the claimant.

The expression was derogatory, but the entire situation was taken into account when assessing unlawfulness: the claimant had presented himself as a role model, his actual violation was proved, and the misdemeanour penalty remained in force. He had also described others in similar terms himself.

The court awarded no compensation. Nor was the claimed 380 euros for pre-litigation legal assistance reimbursed.

The claimant was ordered to pay 1430 euros in County Court costs and 1020 euros in Circuit Court costs, a total of 2450 euros, in addition to his own costs and default interest.

This is a context-specific exception, not general permission to abuse people with obscenities.

19. “Cheats”, “rips people off”, “look at this clown”: 0 €, with the individual claimant liable for a net 1890.70 € in costs

Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 11.03.2022 in 2-20-11550/82, points 39–43 and 44–58.

During a dispute over remuneration, the defendant posted in Facebook groups that a business and its representative did not pay money, cheated and ripped people off. The word “clown” was also used alongside the representative's photograph.

The County Court had awarded 300 euros, but the Circuit Court set aside the compensation award. The correspondence showed that the defendant had performed construction work that would ordinarily be paid for and had been refused payment. Judgments based on that were justified; “clown” was not considered to exceed the bounds of decency in the particular context.

One false statement about filing a report with the police did have to be retracted, but it did not justify monetary compensation.

After costs were set off, the individual claimant had to pay 1890.70 euros; the business co-claimant had to pay 238.85 euros, plus default interest. The example shows how proven non-payment may justify a judgment of “cheating”.

20. “Circumstances suggesting extortion” in a demand letter: 0 €, with the claimant liable for 10 047.44 € in the opposing party's costs

Tartu Circuit Court judgment of 13.09.2024 in 2-20-12495/48, points 18–20 and 23–25.

A press release was shared on Facebook criticising damages demand letters sent by a lawyer and identifying circumstances in them suggesting extortion. The lawyer sought a retraction and non-pecuniary damages.

Following earlier Supreme Court proceedings, the County Court had awarded 350 euros, but the Circuit Court set that aside. The statements criticised professional methods, were based, among other things, on a demand letter received by the defendant personally, and formed part of a public debate on freedom of expression. They were not merely empty abuse concerning private life.

The final outcome in this Circuit Court judgment was:

• non-pecuniary damages of 0 euros;
• 10 047.44 euros in procedural costs payable by the claimant to the defendant;
• in addition, default interest on costs and the claimant's own costs.

When weighing freedom of expression, the court also considered the combined effect of compensation and procedural costs. Merely seeking a small compensation amount does not make a dispute spanning several court instances financially small.

21. Allegedly being called someone who made threats at an apartment association meeting: 0 €, because publication was not proved

Harju County Court judgment of 06.11.2025 in 2-23-7418/28, points 26–36, 39 and 44–45.

The claimant alleged that, at a meeting, another person had said that the claimant had come to threaten the defendant and the defendant's family. The claimant sought a retraction of the statement, non-pecuniary damages and 768 euros in pre-litigation costs.

The defendant denied making the statement. Three witnesses did not confirm it, and the minutes of the meeting contained no such statement. A tense meeting did not in itself prove that the specific sentence had been uttered.

All claims were dismissed: non-pecuniary damages were 0 euros, and the 768-euro cost claim was also dismissed. The claimant was liable for procedural costs, but their monetary amount was to be determined separately.

This does not mean that calling someone a person who makes threats is always permissible. The outcome resulted from the failure to prove the publication on which the claim was based.

22. Reporting a suspicion of theft to an employer: 500 € + 244 € set aside, with the final outcome unresolved

Supreme Court judgment of 25.03.2026 in 2-24-5571/20, points 13–23.

A warehouse manager informed an employer of circumstances which, in the manager's assessment, indicated a truck driver's involvement in aiding a theft. Security-camera footage was submitted to substantiate the suspicion. The truck driver sought a retraction, non-pecuniary damages and 244 euros for pre-litigation legal assistance.

The Circuit Court had awarded 500 + 244 euros, but the Supreme Court set aside the part granting the claim and remanded the case for reconsideration. This cannot be described either as a final 744-euro award or as a final award of zero compensation.

The Supreme Court required a genuine balancing of interests: protection of the employer's property, the employee's duty to report, and the evidence submitted to substantiate the suspicion. Reporting a suspicion to a recipient with a legitimate interest does not always require firm conviction that a crime has been committed.

An important difference from public labelling on Facebook: communicating a substantiated suspicion to someone who needs to know it may be justified.

7. What common conclusions can be drawn from these decisions?

There is no fixed “price” for a word

Compensation is not “300 euros for every insult”. The court assesses the infringement as a whole. Several words may result in a single overall award; compensation for one serious accusation may be higher than for several milder derogatory remarks.

In the cases examined, the amount was influenced primarily by:

• the seriousness and factual basis of the accusation;
• whether the person's activities or the person themselves were disparaged;
• repetition of the post and how long it remained accessible;
• actual and potential readership;
• the connection with the person's professional activities;
• removal, correction and a sincere apology;
• the victim's own role in the emergence of the conflict;
• the need to prevent further infringements.

These factors relate to VÕS § 1046 subsections 1–2 and § 134 subsections 5–6.

Public figures must tolerate more criticism, not unlimited abuse

A public role increases the duty to tolerate criticism of one's activities. It does not automatically justify unfounded sexual accusations, mockery of appearance or baseless accusations of crime.

Likewise, not every harsh judgment becomes unlawful merely because it is unpleasant. Comparing the fishing case with the “celebrity wh**e” case demonstrates precisely the importance of distinguishing criticism of conduct from personal humiliation.

Apologising and deleting help, but do not provide automatic exemption

A prompt and sincere apology may substantially reduce compensation. However, where an obligation to compensate exists, current law cannot be generalised from the statement in older decisions that “the court proceedings themselves are sufficient redress”. The Supreme Court explained this in 2-21-5449/19, point 15.

Where no compensation was awarded, always ask: why?

Above, there were at least four different reasons or situations:

1. the judgment was considered lawful in its context;
2. publication was not proved;
3. monetary compensation was no longer sought;
4. an earlier award was set aside and the case was remanded for reconsideration.

These outcomes must not all be summed up by saying “you cannot obtain damages for insults”.

8. What does this mean for being called a “fraud” on Facebook?

The claim is stronger if…

• the post clearly identifies you as its subject;
• there is no reasonable factual basis for calling you a “fraud”;
• the post also contains specific false accusations;
• it was published where other people could see it, particularly in a larger group;
• publication was repeated or the post remained accessible for a long time;
• the author does not correct the statements or remove the post.

In such circumstances, there is a substantial legal basis for bringing a compensation claim. This assessment is supported by several direct examples above involving “fraud” or “fraudster” on Facebook.

The claim is less certain if…

• the label is based on proven unpaid work, an unfulfilled promise or other relevant conduct;
• it constitutes substantive and factually justified public criticism;
• the subject of the post cannot be identified;
• the author's identity or the content of the published text cannot be proved;
• a substantiated suspicion was communicated narrowly to a person with a legitimate interest in knowing it.

An actual financial dispute does not, however, confer an unlimited right to abuse someone. A business's obligation must also be distinguished from its representative's personal obligation.

Should you seek money, a retraction or removal?

These are different claims:

• monetary compensation for an unlawful infringement of a personality right: VÕS § 134 subsection 2;
• retraction or correction of a false statement of fact: VÕS § 1047 subsection 4;
• cessation of continuing unlawful conduct or prevention of its recurrence: VÕS § 1055 subsection 1.

If “fraud” is merely a value judgment in the particular text, a retraction of it as a statement of fact usually cannot be compelled. Compensation may nevertheless still be possible. Choosing the wrong claim may increase the risk of procedural costs.

9. Legal-cost risks and practical steps

Do not assess the dispute solely by the possible compensation

As a general rule, the losing party bears the opposing party's necessary procedural costs. In the event of partial success, the court may allocate costs between the parties or leave each party to bear their own. Lawyer's fees are reimbursed only to the extent justified and necessary. See TsMS § 162 subsections 1–4, § 163 subsections 1–2 and § 175 subsection 1.

In a claim for non-pecuniary damages, it is possible to leave the amount unspecified and request fair compensation at the court's discretion: TsMS § 366. This differs from a fixed claim for 5000 euros. Merely awarding a lower amount does not automatically constitute a partial loss where the claim is left to the court's discretion; the outcome of other claims may nevertheless affect the allocation of costs.

For public discussion, additional special rules on manifestly unfounded or abusive claims have applied since 30.06.2026: TsMS § 371 subsection 2 clause 3 and § 162 subsection 6. A justified claim to protect one's honour does not become abusive merely because it relates to public discussion.

Before sending a demand letter, it is worth doing the following

1. Preserve the entire post and the context of the conversation, not just the word “fraud”. Take screenshots showing the date, account, group and comments.
2. Preserve the link to the post and, where possible, information about shares and reactions.
3. Gather evidence relating to the transaction or conflict: the contract, correspondence, payments and descriptions of defects in the work.
4. Specify precisely which statement is false or which judgment is unfounded.
5. Consider first making a specific request to remove the post or correct the statement of fact, and seeking a reasonable out-of-court resolution.
6. Before bringing a claim, compare the possible compensation with your own legal assistance costs and the risk of liability for the opposing party's costs.

The general limitation period for a claim for compensation for unlawfully caused damage is three years from becoming aware, or when one ought to have become aware, of the damage and the person liable, subject to a general ten-year maximum: TsÜS § 150 subsections 1 and 3.

Conclusion on your example

An unjustified “fraud” label on Facebook may justify damages; a merely unpleasant judgment does not guarantee success in court. The decisive factors are the full text of the post and whether the accusation had a reasonable basis.

Financially, it is worth bearing in mind that compensation may be a few hundred euros, while the costs of the dispute may run into thousands. The strength of a claim can be assessed much more accurately from the specific post and its background than from the word used alone.