Should we take an article offline if we receive a cease-and-desist letter?

Not automatically. A cease-and-desist letter is a demand from the other party, not a court’s judgment. Taking the piece offline can be sensible where there is a clear factual error or the harm is growing fast, but it does not make the claim go away. First record what you had at the moment of publication: sources, versions and the right of reply. Then decide, within the deadline in the letter, whether to amend, add a response or leave the publication up. If that deadline is too short to do this properly, ask for more time.

Should I sign an undertaking or rectification that the other party sends me?

No, and certainly not without having the text reviewed first. A signed undertaking to refrain from further statements is a contract in which you promise not to repeat certain statements, usually with a penalty for each breach. A rectification says that what you published was incorrect. If you want to accommodate the other party, limit the text to the factual error you genuinely accept, describe exactly which statements the undertaking covers and negotiate the amount of the penalty.

Does a journalist have to reveal a source in proceedings over a publication?

As a rule, no. Source protection falls under freedom of expression in Article 10 ECHR. In Dutch criminal proceedings, a journalist or publicist called as a witness can decline to answer questions about where information came from (Article 218a of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure); the examining judge can only reject that if a weightier public interest would otherwise suffer disproportionate harm. In civil proceedings you do need to show that you had sufficient support in the available facts. You can do that with documents, other sources and a description of the source’s position, without giving the name.

Freedom of expression lawyer

A cease-and-desist letter or writ of summons over something you published or said calls for a quick choice: amend it, take it offline, offer a rectification or defend your statement. That choice determines where you stand if interim injunction proceedings follow. Whether your statement holds up depends on how a Dutch court weighs your freedom of expression against the rights of the person it concerns.

Liaise acts for the party that has spoken out: newsrooms and publishers, broadcasters and producers, creators, influencers and podcasters, as well as businesses and private individuals called to account for a post, review or interview.

Received a cease-and-desist letter or a writ of summons? Call 020 675 88 21 or get in contact. The deadline in such a letter is often a few days, sometimes a few hours.

What is freedom of expression?

Freedom of expression is the right to express what you think and believe without the government granting permission in advance. In the Netherlands this is set out in Article 7 of the Constitution (in Dutch). That article prohibits prior censorship and immediately adds a qualification: everyone remains answerable under the law. After the event, then, you can certainly be called to account.

In practice the court assesses matters primarily against Article 10 ECHR. That also protects statements which offend, shock or disturb. The European Court of Human Rights counted this among the essentials of a democratic society as long ago as 1976 (Handyside v United Kingdom). Restriction is permitted, but only where it is prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.

When is freedom of expression restricted?

There is no list of forbidden words. The court weighs your right to free expression against the other party’s right to honour, reputation and private life (Article 8 ECHR). Neither right wins out in advance.

What tips the balance are the circumstances. How grave is the accusation and what did you base it on? Was it a statement of fact or a value judgment? Was there a matter of public concern that deserved attention? How wide was the reach? And could you have said the same thing in a less damaging way?

Accused of criminal defamation: what is your defence?

Article 261 of the Dutch Criminal Code makes it an offence to damage someone’s honour or reputation by charging them with a particular fact, with the apparent aim of giving that publicity.

Two things matter when this is brought against you. A vague characterisation is not a particular fact, because a concrete act must be alleged. The third paragraph also contains an exception for anyone who could assume in good faith that the assertion was correct and that the public interest required the statement. This defence of truth, the exceptio veritatis, forms the core of the defence in many cases.

When was the allegation made in the knowledge that it was untrue?

Article 262 of the Dutch Criminal Code covers criminal defamation made in the knowledge that the allegation is untrue. It is the graver charge, and that knowledge has to be proved as well.

Cease-and-desist letters often put the accusation more loosely than the statute allows. If you had doubts about the accuracy, or relied on sources that looked reliable at the time, that graver charge does not stand. How the two offences relate to one another is set out on our page about defamation and slander.

Insult (belediging): where does criticism cross the line?

With belediging, the Dutch offence of insult (Article 266 of the Dutch Criminal Code), which has no direct equivalent in English criminal law, that concrete fact is precisely what is absent. It covers abuse and hurtful characterisations.

The second paragraph contains an exception that is often passed over. Statements intended to give an opinion on the conduct of public affairs are not criminal insult, unless the form makes clear that your aim was to wound someone. Sharp criticism of a director or a politician regularly falls within this. The tone then determines whether you stay on the right side of the line.

A civil claim over an unlawful statement

Most cases play out not in criminal law but in civil law. The other party argues that your statement is unlawful (Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code) and claims removal, rectification, an injunction to restrain publication or damages. Usually in interim injunction proceedings, so within a few weeks.

That is a different test. Intent does not have to be proved. The question is whether you crossed the line of what is socially acceptable. Even where no criminal offence has been committed, you can still lose a civil case. Conversely, a publication that lands hard is not for that reason an unlawful publication.

What to do first when you receive a cease-and-desist letter over your publication

A cease-and-desist letter states a demand, not a judgment. The demands are almost always wider than what a court would grant, and the deadline is short. That is exactly when it is tempting to take an article, video or post offline straight away.

Do not do that by reflex. Taking it offline can be sensible where there is a clear factual error or the harm is growing fast, but it does not make the claim go away, and the other party sometimes reads it as an admission. First record what you had at the moment of publication: your sources and notes, the versions of the piece and the correspondence about the right of reply. That file determines whether your defence holds up, and after a few weeks it often cannot be fully pieced together again.

We then assess whether the demands hold up legally and what you do and do not concede. Sometimes meeting the other party part way is sensible, for instance by correcting a factual inaccuracy without retracting the substance. Sometimes a substantive rejection is the better move. Respond within the deadline in any event, even if you concede nothing, and ask for more time if the deadline is too short.

What you write in that first letter will be on the table in any subsequent interim injunction proceedings. Clumsily worded regret works against you there.

The consequences of signing a rectification or undertaking

A cease-and-desist letter often comes with a draft: a rectification you are asked to publish, a signed undertaking to refrain from further statements, or both. Do not sign anything without having the text reviewed.

A rectification says that what you wrote was incorrect. If you want to accommodate the other party, limit the text to the factual error you genuinely accept and leave the rest of your piece standing. An undertaking is a contract in which you promise not to repeat certain statements, usually with a penalty for each breach. Describe precisely which statements it covers, so that you do not unwittingly rule out a critical follow-up article or an interview, and negotiate the amount of the penalty.

Defending interim injunction proceedings over your publication

Interim injunction proceedings move fast. Between the writ of summons and the hearing there are usually a few weeks, and with an imminent broadcast sometimes only a few days. In that time your defence has to be ready, with the documents that show your factual basis.

We build the defence along four lines:

the factual basis you had at the time of publication;
the distinction between a statement of fact and a value judgment;
the public interest your statement served;
the exceptio veritatis, where it applies.

Alongside that we test the claim itself. Courts are reluctant to grant an injunction to restrain publication before anything has appeared, given the prohibition on censorship in Article 7 of the Constitution. And the reputational harm the other party claims is in practice often a good deal higher than what a court awards.

On costs: as the defendant you pay a court fee (in Dutch, griffierecht) once you enter an appearance, in 2026 €735 for a company and €341 for a private individual where the claim has no monetary value. If you lose, the court will usually order you to pay the other party’s legal costs. That is a fixed amount, lower than what proceedings actually cost, and it works the other way round if you win.

Protecting your source in proceedings over a publication

As a rule, you do not have to name your source. The European Court of Human Rights regards source protection as one of the foundations of press freedom under Article 10 ECHR. If you are heard as a witness in Dutch criminal proceedings, you may as a journalist or publicist decline to say where your information came from (Article 218a of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, in Dutch). The examining judge can only reject that if a weightier public interest would otherwise suffer disproportionate harm.

In civil proceedings over your publication, too, you can in principle shield your source. You do have to show that you had sufficient support in the available facts. You can do that with documents, with other sources that say the same thing, and with a description of your source’s position that shows why the source was reliable, without anyone being able to identify the source from it. How to build that, we discuss before your defence goes out.

You do not have to be a journalist to rely on freedom of expression. In our TikTok case the court rejected every claim over posts on social media. With fiction about real people, something else is at play: around the Dutch drama series De Maatschap, a former lawyer tried to stop the broadcast, partly on the grounds of his honour and reputation. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected that, because it concerned a fictional character in a series presented as fiction.

For a novel or other book in which real people are recognisable, the same balancing applies, along with a few questions of its own, such as access to the manuscript.

More about a book about real people →

Having a statement assessed beforehand, including within an employment relationship

Checking in advance is cheaper than litigating afterwards. With statements made within an employment relationship, what you have agreed about confidentiality also comes into play, as does whether your situation falls under whistleblower protection. For newsrooms and creators we also do this as a matter of routine, shortly before publication or broadcast.

Pre-publication legal review →

Would you like to know how strong your position is? Get in contact or call 020 675 88 21 for an initial assessment.