California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Issa v. Applegate, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 31 Cal.App.5th 689 (Cal. App. 2019):
Most significant here is the requirement that the challenged implications of fact must not be "substantially true." ( Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 669, 697, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 40, italics added.) "[T]he law does not require [the defendant] to justify the literal truth of every word of the allegedly defamatory content.... It is sufficient if the defendant proves true the substance of the charge, irrespective of slight inaccuracy in the details, "so long as the imputation is substantially true so as to justify the gist or sting of the remark." " ( Ibid. ) Thus, "the statement is not considered false unless
[242 Cal.Rptr.3d 825]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.