The Italian Supreme Court Rules That “Substantial Truth” Is No Longer Enough

With the landmark ruling n. 13200 of May 18, 2025, the Joint Chambers of the Italian Court of Cassation have brought about a pivotal shift in the law concerning the civil liability of journalists, settling a long-standing jurisprudential conflict. The established principle is clear and stringent: the defence of the right to report news (fair comment) does not apply when the news contains essential formal errors regarding a person’s procedural status or the nature of the crime, even if the overall reconstruction of the facts appears substantially true. In this context, the well-known doctrine of “substantial truth” undergoes a significant restriction.

The Case Facts and the Contrast in the Lower Courts

The case originates from an article published in 2013 on an online weekly magazine, in which an individual was referred to as an “indicted defendant (imputato) for fraud.” In reality, at the time of publication, the person was formally only “under investigation (indagato)”, and the alleged crime was not completed fraud, but “attempted fraud.” The individual, believing his honour, reputation, and image had been harmed, filed a compensation claim against the journalist, the editor-in-chief, and the publishing company.

The lower courts had reached diametrically opposed conclusions:

• The Court of First Instance had dismissed the claim, holding that the two inaccuracies – while existing – did not undermine the overall adherence to truth in the factual reconstruction, thus saving the publication under the right to report news.
• The Court of Appeal, conversely, had upheld the claim, judging those same inaccuracies to be determinative and capable of constituting damage to reputation.

The Legal Issue: The Conflict Between Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

The Court of Cassation was called upon to resolve a profound jurisprudential conflict that saw the Court’s Civil and Criminal Sections holding divergent positions.

• The Traditional Civil Approach tended to favour an overall assessment, deeming news reporting lawful if, despite specific errors, the “essential core” of the reported story corresponded to the truth.
• The Criminal Approach was historically more rigorous, holding that the erroneous qualification of an investigated person as “indicted” or the attribution of a completed rather than attempted crime constituted in themselves prejudicial and defamatory falsehoods, not covered by the right to report news.

The Joint Chambers have now established a uniform and binding rule, aligning civil jurisprudence with the stricter principle already characterising criminal jurisprudence.

The New Principle Established by the Joint Chambers

The ruling establishes that an error regarding procedural status (calling a subject “indicted” when they are only “under investigation”) and regarding the consummation of the crime (speaking of a “completed” crime when it is an “attempt”) constitute in themselves an injury to the right to honour and reputation.

Such statements are considered objectively capable of harming reputation because they attribute to the person a legal position of greater gravity than the actual one. The publication of these inaccuracies is therefore not covered by the defence of the right to report news (ex art. 51 of the Italian Criminal Code), unless the overall context of the news item modifies in a “clear and unequivocal” manner the meaning perceived by the average reader.

In other words, journalists can no longer rely on a reconstruction that is faithful only “in broad strokes.” They must ensure maximum formal precision precisely on the elements that most affect the public perception of an individual: their role in the proceedings and the gravity of the offence attributed to them.

Practical Implications and Consequences for Media Professionals

This ruling has a direct and significant impact on journalistic activity, particularly in the delicate phase of judicial reporting:

1. Raised Standard of Care: Journalists and editors-in-chief are required to conduct punctual and scrupulous verification of judicial documents (requests for indictment, court orders, judgments) before publication. Approximation regarding these data is no longer tolerated.
2. Reduced Scope for Defence: The possibility of invoking “substantial truth” as a defence is drastically reduced. A defence may exceptionally succeed only by demonstrating, with specific evidence, that the article’s context (headline, opening, general tone) made the formal inaccuracy evident to the reader.
3. Increased Exposure to Compensation Claims: For injured parties (suspects, defendants, injured parties), the ruling offers a stronger and more immediate tool for protection. Simply proving a formal error on these essential points makes it much easier to establish liability and damage.

Ruling no. 13200/2025 strikes a balance between two constitutionally relevant needs: freedom of information (Art. 21 of the Constitution) and the protection of honour and reputation (Art. 2 of the Constitution). The Joint Chambers have clarified that the former cannot prevail at the expense of information that is formally inaccurate on aspects touching the core of an individual’s social dignity.

A new paradigm of accuracy is thus imposed in judicial reporting, which must be inspired not by the “almost true,” but by the “formally and substantially correct,” especially when the correct legal qualification of individuals and facts is at stake.

The Law Firm of Attorney Angelo Cocozza offers specialised assistance both in protecting reputation from unlawful publications and in defending media professionals, providing up-to-date counsel on the most recent and stringent developments in jurisprudence regarding media civil liability.