Serious harm has to be proved. From the page.
English law stopped presuming damage. Under the Defamation Act 2013 a statement is not defamatory unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation, and a body trading for profit must show serious financial loss. You have one year from publication to bring the claim. All of that is proved from a page that somebody can delete in one click.
Works on Chrome and Edge. From $4.99 (about £3.90) as a one-off, or a 7-day trial that requires a credit card.
The serious harm threshold turned English defamation into an evidence exercise. Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 a statement is not defamatory of a person unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation, and for a body trading for profit that means serious financial loss, which is a high bar that few claimants have cleared. The limitation period is one year from publication, set by section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 rather than by the Defamation Act 2013, and the single publication rule in section 8 of the 2013 Act means the clock generally runs from first publication rather than restarting each time the page is served again. Proving what was published, to whom, and how far it travelled is therefore the whole exercise, and every part of it lives on a page that can be deleted. ProofSnap captures the post, the profile, the comment thread and the visible engagement as a package containing the full page, the saved source, the URL, the UTC capture time, a SHA-256 hash of every file, an RSA-4096 signature and an eIDAS qualified timestamp that carries the Article 41 presumption under retained UK law. From $4.99 (about £3.90) as a one-off.
By Radim Motycka, Founder and Lead Engineer, ProofSnap · · Independently verifiable via Trust Verifier
Why this goes wrong so often
The post comes down, and the case comes down with it
People delete defamatory posts, usually because somebody told them to, and that happens long before your solicitor sees the file.
Deleted before you get advice
The gap between reading something about yourself and instructing a solicitor is usually days. That is more than enough time for the post, the account or the whole page to disappear, and platforms are not obliged to keep a copy for you.
Serious harm is argued from the spread
Since the threshold applies, you have to put harm in evidence rather than assume it. For an online publication that means how far it travelled: shares, views, comments, who engaged, and the size of the audience. All of it is on the page, and only while the page is live.
One year, running from publication
The limitation period is one year, and the single publication rule means it generally runs from the first publication rather than restarting. Deciding slowly is the same as deciding not to.
What English law now asks of a claimant
These are the fixed points. Each one is answered with documents, and each document is a web page.
Serious harm, section 1
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation. It is a threshold that has to be met on evidence of actual or likely impact, not on how unpleasant the words are.
Serious financial loss for companies
A body that trades for profit must show that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss. That is a high threshold and the reported cases where it was established are few, so document the commercial consequence as it happens.
One year, and the single publication rule
The limitation period is one year from publication, and it sits in section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 rather than in the Defamation Act 2013. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 introduced the single publication rule, so time generally runs from the first publication of the same or substantially the same material rather than restarting on each new access.
How the evidence is proved
A capture that documents its own integrity answers the practical question a court asks about a web page. Under CPR 32.19 the authenticity of a disclosed document is deemed admitted unless the other side serves a notice to prove, so the strength of your record shapes whether they bother.
Capture the reach, not just the words
The most common gap in an English defamation file is proof of extent and consequence, which is exactly what the serious harm threshold now demands. Capture the post together with what is visible around it: the share count, the view count, the comment thread, the reactions, the size of the group or page it appeared on, and any reposts you can find. Capture each as its own record on the day you find it. If you are a business, capture the downstream consequence too, such as a cancelled order thread or a review page.
Three steps, about forty seconds
No forensic training required. The proof is in the package, not in your testimony about how careful you were.
Capture the publication and its reach
The post, the profile behind it, the comment thread and any reshares. Each capture records the URL and the UTC time, so the sequence of what appeared when is preserved.
The package seals and timestamps itself
SHA-256 for every file, an RSA-4096 signature over the manifest, an eIDAS qualified timestamp and an anchor to the Bitcoin blockchain, so the date of your capture cannot be moved.
Hand it to your solicitor as one file
The PDF evidence report reads like a document and the ZIP verifies in a browser. Your solicitor gets a file to build a letter of claim from rather than a folder of loose images.
What lands in the evidence package
Between 11 and 15 files depending on your plan, delivered as one ZIP that anyone can check without installing anything.
Full-page screenshot
The whole page, not just the visible window, stitched and hashed.
Saved page source
The document as rendered at capture time, including the head, meta tags and structured data.
Extracted page text
Searchable plain text, so a quote can be found and cited without retyping.
Technical metadata
URL, page title, HTTP response headers, browser, operating system and the capture time in UTC.
Signed manifest
SHA-256 for every file, signed with an RSA-4096 key whose public key ships in the package.
Blockchain timestamp
The manifest hash anchored to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps, so the capture time cannot be backdated.
Chain of custody and forensic log
A record of what happened during the capture, in the order it happened.
Evidence report as PDF
A readable summary you can attach to an application, a notice or a report.
Verification instructions
Written steps plus scripts, so the other side can re-check the hashes offline.
Anyone can verify it, including the other side. Drop the ZIP onto the public Trust Verifier and the hashes, the signature and the timestamp are checked in the browser. Nothing is uploaded and nothing depends on ProofSnap still existing.
Three ways to get the evidence
Prices are charged in USD. Approximate sterling figures are shown for orientation only, and your card issuer sets the actual rate.
One dispute
$4.99 once
about £4
A SnapPack is a single up-front purchase for a set number of captures. No subscription, no auto-renewal, no trial. Best when you have one problem and you want it documented today.
Get a SnapPackOngoing matters
$8.99/month
about £7
For anyone who captures regularly: practitioners, property managers, HR, investigators. The 7-day free trial requires a credit card. Cancel any time during the trial and you are not charged.
Start the 7-day trialWe do it for you
$44.99 per URL
about £34
Send us the link and our team captures the package for you, with nothing to install. Useful when the capture should not come from a party to the dispute.
See the capture serviceProofSnap is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. This reflects the position as at 30 July 2026. Recognition of EU qualified status in the UK rests on Article 24A of the assimilated eIDAS Regulation, and section 131 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 contains a power to narrow it which has not been brought into force. Qualified timestamps are issued by Disig a.s., a Qualified Trust Service Provider on the EU Trusted List. The United Kingdom retained the trust services chapter of eIDAS in domestic law and recognises EU qualified providers, so that timestamp carries the Article 41 presumption here.
Official sources
Every figure and deadline on this page comes from the following primary sources. Check them yourself rather than taking our word for it.
- Defamation Act 2013 section 1 serious harm and section 8 single publication rule.
- Civil Evidence Act 1995 sections 8 and 9 on proving statements in documents and business records.
- CPR Part 32 the evidence rules, including the notice to prove in rule 32.19.
- Limitation Act 1980, section 4A where the one-year limitation period for defamation actually sits, as substituted by the Defamation Act 1996.
Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own defamation regimes and the Defamation Act 2013 does not apply in the same way, so confirm the law of the jurisdiction where you would sue rather than assuming English rules travel across the UK.
Questions people actually ask
One year to act. The post may not last the week.
Capture the publication and its reach while both are still visible, then take advice.