A woman who accused a man before hundreds of TikTok viewers of sending her a nude photo must pay him 30,000 shekels ($9,600) in damages, the Be'er Sheva Magistrate’s Court has ruled, after she admitted she failed to verify that he was in fact the sender.
The court found that the woman committed defamation when she publicly identified the plaintiff during a live broadcast on TikTok in late 2023 as the person who had sent her an unsolicited explicit image and indecent proposals.
According to the ruling, the woman received a message from a man via an app that included a photo of a penis and sexual propositions. Believing the sender was the plaintiff, who shares the same name as the actual sender, she blocked him.
About two and a half months later, during a TikTok livestream viewed by hundreds of users, she stated that the plaintiff was “definitely” the person who had sent the image. She also revealed his phone number during the broadcast.
In a lawsuit filed in March 2024, the man said that following the broadcast, he received numerous harassing messages, his reputation was severely harmed and he was forced to change his phone number. He said that during the livestream, he contacted the defendant and asked her to provide details about the alleged sender of the explicit image in front of viewers.
The woman argued that the plaintiff had pressured her to disclose publicly her claims about the sender, while she preferred to address the matter privately. She said that before receiving the explicit image, the plaintiff had told her he would “surprise” her, which made him her primary suspect.
However, she acknowledged in court that she made no effort to verify her suspicions. “There was no attempt to check whether it was him or not, he was simply blocked,” she testified. “If I was mistaken, and if you (the plaintiff) insist that it wasn’t you, then I apologize.”
Attorney Shmuel GrossJudge Or Adam ruled that her failure to verify the identity of the sender was sufficient to establish liability for defamation.
“There is no doubt that leveling an accusation that a person sent a picture of his sexual organ and indecent proposals in a broad forum of hundreds of viewers is a very serious event,” the judge wrote. “This is not mere name-calling or a blunt and insulting remark, but a very serious allegation that defamed the plaintiff before many viewers. The defendant did not know it was the plaintiff, but relied on an unfounded suspicion that was never examined.”
The court also found that the plaintiff’s own contribution to the public airing of the allegations — by insisting that the defendant provide further details about the sender during the livestream, rather than privately as she requested — justified reducing the damages awarded.
Another factor cited in lowering the compensation was the prevalence of “nonsense disseminated on social networks,” which naturally leads the public to attribute less credibility to statements made there compared with established media outlets, and that compensation amounts must take that into account.
Under the ruling, the defendant was ordered to pay 25,000 shekels in damages for defamation, plus 5,000 shekels in legal expenses and attorney’s fees, for a total of 30,000 shekels.
First published: 18:12, 02.26.26