Turning Reputational Harm Into a Defensible Number
Attorneys and their clients frequently know, intuitively, that defamatory content caused harm — but intuition doesn't survive a Daubert challenge or hold up in settlement negotiations. Damages analysis requires connecting specific defamatory content to measurable outcomes: search ranking changes, traffic drops, conversion or revenue declines, and lost opportunities, documented with analytics data and a defensible methodology rather than inferred from timing alone. This is where a substantial share of internet defamation damages theories run into trouble, because building a credible number requires isolating the effect of the defamatory content from every other variable that could plausibly explain a change in performance.
I approach every damages engagement the way I'd want a rebuttal expert to be unable to approach mine: identifying and explicitly addressing alternative explanations, using a clear before-and-after methodology anchored to when content was actually discoverable (not just when it was published), and tying every dollar figure back to a specific, citable data source.
How Damages Analysis Works
Timeline Construction
Mapping when defamatory content was published, spread, and indexed against a business's or individual's performance data, anchored to when the content was actually discoverable.
Analytics-Based Analysis
Using Google Search Console, Google Analytics, rank tracking, and other data sources to isolate the impact of the defamatory content from other variables that could explain a change.
Business Impact Modeling
Connecting traffic and visibility changes to revenue, lead, or customer impact using the business's own financial and operational data, in a form usable for trial or settlement.
Expert Reporting
A written damages report or declaration suitable for litigation, mediation, or settlement discussions, structured to withstand cross-examination and Daubert scrutiny.