CIV § 46

Slander Definition: 5 Categories | CIV § 46

CIV § 46 defines slander as a false, unprivileged oral publication charging crime, loathsome disease, business injury, impotence, or causing actual damage.

Official text CIV § 46 — California

Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:

  • 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
  • 2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
  • 3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
  • 4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or 5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 46 defines slander as a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered — and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means — that falls within one of five numbered categories. Unlike libel, spoken defamation is not actionable simply because it lowers someone's reputation; it has to fit the list.

The categories are: charging a person with a crime, or with having been indicted, convicted or punished for one; imputing the present existence of an infectious, contagious or loathsome disease; tending directly to injure the person in respect of their office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing a general disqualification in the respects the occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something about the occupation that naturally tends to lessen its profits; imputing impotence or want of chastity; and — the fifth and quite different one — any statement which by natural consequence causes actual damage.

The first four are the historic categories where the law presumes damage; the fifth admits everything else on condition that actual damage is proved. That structure is what makes the third category the workhorse of modern claims: statements about someone's competence or honesty at work fall within it and do not require proof of a specific loss. As with libel, falsity and absence of privilege are built into the definition rather than added as defences, so a substantially true statement is not slander and a statement covered by § 47 is not slander. Note the drafting of "orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means", which is where broadcast and recorded speech sit. Whether a spoken statement fits a category, and whether it was privileged, are questions to take to a lawyer.

When it applies

  • A former colleague telling your new employer you were sacked for theft
  • Someone telling customers that a tradesman is unqualified or dishonest
  • An accusation of a crime made out loud in front of others
  • A statement about a business in a broadcast or a recorded call
  • Remarks at a meeting that cost you work
  • A spoken allegation that caused a specific, provable loss

What this section does not say

  • It does not cover everything unkind that is said about you. Outside the four listed categories, subdivision 5 requires proof that the statement caused actual damage.
  • It does not apply to writing. Written and other fixed representations to the eye are libel under § 45, and the two have different rules.
  • It does not defeat the privileges. Section 47 protects statements in judicial and official proceedings and certain communications between interested persons — including, on request and without malice, a former employer's answer about job performance.
  • Truth is not a defence to be raised; falsity is an element. A substantially true statement is not slander at all under the definition.
  • It says nothing about damages. What can be recovered comes from the general damages provisions, and § 48a affects claims involving news publications and broadcasts.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A former colleague tells someone at a person's new employer that they were dismissed for stealing. They were not, and the offer is withdrawn.

How the wording applies

Subdivision 3 covers a statement that tends directly to injure a person in respect of their office, profession, trade or business, which does not require proof of special damage. The fact this hinges on is whether the statement was made in answer to a request from the employer and without malice, because section 47(c) privileges a former employer's answer about job performance given in that setting.

How the parties settled it

The former colleague writes to the employer correcting the statement, the employer confirms it will reconsider the application, and no further claim is made.

Illustrative example

At a residents' meeting someone states that a tradesman working in the building is unlicensed and has been reported. Neither is true, and two owners cancel their jobs.

How the wording applies

An accusation about qualification in a trade falls within the third category, so the two cancelled jobs are evidence rather than an element of the claim. It turns on falsity and on privilege, since a statement to fellow owners about a contractor working on their building may be a communication between interested persons under section 47(c), which is lost if it was made with malice.

How the parties settled it

The speaker corrects the statement at the next meeting and in the residents' newsletter, and the tradesman is offered the cancelled work at the original quote.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1122 (2003)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether false allegations of criminal conduct, which are slander per se under Civil Code section 46, are subject to the anti-SLAPP statute when made in a private dispute.

What it held

Such false allegations of criminal conduct, when made in a private dispute, are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because they are not protected activity under the statute.

In the court's words
Simply stated, causes of action arising out of false allegations of criminal conduct, made under circumstances like those alleged in this case, are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 46 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages