In a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications, a portuguese court rules that wikipedia published defamatory claims masquerading as fact, forcing a global takedown order
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark decision that set the modern standard for libel cases involving the press — and the Times won. The ruling strengthened First Amendment protections, making it harder for public figures to sue for defamation and cementing a precedent that news organizations have relied on for decades.
Sixty years later, the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and operates Wikipedia, has just faced a similarly high-stakes libel battle. This time, the publisher lost. In August 2025, after years of litigation in Portugal, WMF complied with a court order to remove disputed material from Wikipedia and hand over identifying information on eight of its volunteer editors.
The DePaço case is the first time WMF has both removed content and handed over contributor data in a European defamation case. Since its inception, WMF has argued that it can’t be held liable for statements made on Wikipedia since it claims to have no editorial control over the site. This latter assertion is debatable; WMF is willing to get directly involved in editorial issues when it suits its agenda.
Now, the Supreme Court of an EU country has mooted this claim. Libel, the Portuguese court says, is libel. For Wikipedia, which has swirled with claims about defamation from its earliest days, the consequences of the case could not be greater.
WMF’s Lead Trust and Safety Specialist Joe Sutherland posted on Village Pump, Wikipedia’s central community noticeboard for project-wide discussions:
The [court] decision undermines the right to privacy and free expression of volunteers who contribute edits and share information on Wikipedia. Further, it removes access to knowledge for the millions of people who read Wikipedia in Portuguese and English.
The plaintiff, Portuguese businessman and former honorary consul César DePaço, had fought to have allegations about his past stripped from his biographies in English and Portuguese. De Paço disputed both the relevance and the accuracy of claims in his Wikipedia entry that he had ties to a criminal organization and had donated to a far-right political party. In his view, they amounted to reputational attacks masquerading as encyclopedic fact.
This case was important to me because it was about more than my personal reputation,” DePaço told Pirate Wires. “It was about truth, accountability, and standing up to defamation disguised as ‘open information.’ Falsehoods, once published online, take on a life of their own and can be weaponised. I could have walked away, but doing so would have allowed lies to become accepted as fact.
In January 2021, DePaço’s lawyer sent a legal demand to Wikimedia Portugal ordering the disputed material removed within 48 hours and threatening fines of €2,000 per day for non-compliance. Wikimedia Portugal clarified it had no editorial authority; only the Wikimedia Foundation, based in San Francisco, could take action.
The initial court case went WMF’s way. But on July 13th 2023, the Lisbon Court of Appeal overturned that decision in dramatic fashion. In its ruling, the court ordered WMF to remove “criminal allegations allegedly committed by César DePaço in 1989,” along with details of the legal proceedings, mention of the DePaço Foundation, his removal as honorary consul of Cape Verde, and his inability to obtain Portuguese documents. The court also ordered WMF to identify “all editors who added such content” to his Wikipedia pages; and pay €250 for each day of delay in compliance.
The Supreme Court refused to hear WMF’s appeal. On April 10th 2025, the Constitutional Court dismissed WMF’s constitutional challenge, reaffirming the removal and unmasking orders and ordering WMF to pay legal costs.
On August 5th 2025, WMF announced it would comply. Within days, the disputed content was gone from Wikipedia, and data on eight editors, including IP addresses and, where available, email addresses, had been turned over to the Portuguese court. The editor data was not made public. It was provided to the court and, by standard procedure, became accessible to DePaço’s legal team.
Following WMF’s court loss, Wikipedia added a highly unusual banner to the top of DePaço’s article that states:
On 5 August 2025, content from this article was removed following a court order and must not be restored. Therefore, this article does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and comprehensiveness.
The banner lists the accusations that the Portuguese court ordered to be removed.
DePaço believes Wikipedia anonymity to be a key component of this case.
There is no doubt in my mind that certain individuals acted in bad faith,” DePaço says. “This was not simply a matter of error or oversight. Evidence presented in court showed a deliberate effort to damage my name by selectively publishing false information and resisting all attempts to correct it. That goes far beyond innocent mistake and constitutes malice.
WMF did not respond to a request for comment.
Since 2005, when a false Wikipedia entry accused the former USA Today editor John Siegenthaler of involvement in the Kennedy assassinations, Wikipedia has faced recurring scandals over defamatory content in its “Biographies of Living Persons.” Each time, the Wikimedia Foundation has stressed that it does not control article content and that disputes should be resolved within the volunteer community.
While the DePaço case was a straightforward defamation/libel issue, in an EU context — where law provides for a digital “Right to Be Forgotten” (RTBF) — the ruling has wide implications. While RTBF has traditionally been applied to indexing, not to the original content source, in this case a court not only ordered removal at the source, but also applied the order globally.
In the U.S., these kinds of rulings will inevitably bump up against the almost limitlessly robust protections afforded digital platforms by Section 230. But the ruling also shows the limitations of Section 230 when it comes to borderless digital content, often concerning individuals and entities with nexus in numerous jurisdictions outside the U.S.
From DePaço’s vantage point, the case has more to do with Wikipedia, specifically.
Before this case, I knew Wikipedia was imperfect,” DePaço says. “What I did not fully grasp was the extent to which its content can be controlled by a small group of anonymous individuals who operate with little transparency or accountability. The public assumes it is an open and neutral resource. In reality, a handful of editors can decide what the world is allowed to read about a person or event regardless of truth.
The César DePaço v. Wikimedia Foundation case began as a fight over a handful of disputed sentences. It ended with a global takedown order and the unmasking of volunteer editors. For DePaço, it’s a vindication. For WMF, it’s a rare legal defeat that potentially carries long-term consequences.
By Ashley Rindsberg
Note: This content is transcribed in full from the Pirate Wires website.
