The brutal respiratory infection has infected tens of thousands and killed at least 13 people in the U.S. in 2025

Newly released FBI documents linked to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation include an unverified tip claiming a connection between Donald Trump and the 2000 death of a 19-year-old woman.

Yes, individuals can potentially be sued for posting false information about vaccines on social media, but success depends on specific legal criteria, primarily under defamation law (libel for written/posts). General false statements about vaccines (e.g., "vaccines cause autism" or "COVID vaccines are dangerous") are often protected as opinion or public health debate under the First Amendment, making lawsuits rare and difficult. When a Lawsuit Might Succeed Defamation requires: A false statement of fact (not opinion). Presented as fact. Identifiable harm to someone's reputation (e.g., accusing a specific doctor or company of fraud/misconduct related to vaccines). Publication to third parties (social media qualifies). Examples where suits could work: Posting false claims that a named individual (e.g., a doctor or vaccine developer) committed crimes, was negligent, or engaged in unethical behavior tied to vaccines. Real cases include anonymous accusations against doctors (e.g., selling fake COVID vaccine cards), leading to settlements with retractions and payments. Sharing/reposting defamatory content can also trigger liability under the "republication doctrine." Victims can file "John Doe" lawsuits to unmask anonymous posters via subpoenas to platforms. Major Barriers to Suing First Amendment protections: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that many false statements are protected speech (e.g., United States v. Alvarez, 2012), especially on public issues like vaccines. Misinformation is often seen as contributing to debate, and restricting it risks government overreach. No general "misinformation" tort: There's no broad U.S. law allowing suits purely for spreading false vaccine info causing public harm (e.g., hesitancy). Attempts to criminalize or sue over general falsehoods fail on free speech grounds. Section 230 immunity: Social media platforms (e.g., X, Facebook) are shielded from liability for user posts, even harmful misinformation. You sue the poster, not the platform. Opinion vs. fact: Phrases like "I believe vaccines are unsafe" are protected opinion; verifiable false facts (e.g., targeting a person) are riskier. Public figures/actual malice: If targeting officials or companies, plaintiffs must prove "actual malice" (knowing falsehood or reckless disregard)—a high bar. Related Cases and Context No major successful suits against individuals solely for general anti-vaccine misinformation on social media. Suits often go the other way: Against companies (e.g., Pfizer sued by states for alleged misrepresentation) or governments/platforms for censoring anti-vaccine posts (e.g., Murthy v. Missouri on government coercion of platforms). Doctors spreading misinformation face professional discipline (license revocation), not private suits. Platforms moderate vaccine misinformation voluntarily, protected by Section 230. In summary, while possible for targeted defamatory falsehoods, suing over broad vaccine misinformation posts is unlikely to succeed due to strong free speech protections. Truth is an absolute defense, and proving all elements (especially harm) is challenging. Consult a lawyer for specific cases, as laws vary by state.