Civil Law and UAE: Misinformation Damages and Civil Claims

1. Introduction

Misinformation damages arise when false, misleading, fabricated, or materially inaccurate information causes legally recognizable harm to another person, company, or organization.

In the UAE, misinformation can generate both criminal and civil consequences. The civil claim is concerned principally with repairing the harm suffered by the victim, while criminal proceedings address whether the conduct constitutes an offence.

The modern UAE framework is particularly important because misinformation may be distributed through:

• social-media platforms;
• WhatsApp;
• email;
• websites;
• online reviews;
• blogs;
• digital advertisements;
• AI-generated content;
• manipulated photographs or videos;
• anonymous accounts;
• messaging groups; and
• automated or algorithmic systems.

Since 1 June 2026, the new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law is in force. Its harmful-act provisions now appear principally in Articles 245–258. The new law maintains the fundamental structure of civil liability while expressly dealing with direct/causal harm, external causes, compensation and limitation.

2. Meaning of Misinformation

Misinformation can broadly include information that is:

1. factually false;
2. materially misleading;
3. presented without important qualifying information;
4. falsely attributed to another person;
5. manipulated or fabricated;
6. republished without reasonable verification where legally relevant; or
7. generated or distributed through technological systems.

However, not every false statement automatically produces civil liability.

A claimant normally needs to establish the applicable legal basis and prove legally recognized damage and causation.

The basic structure is:

False/Unlawful Information → Harm → Causation → Civil Liability → Compensation

3. Current UAE Civil-Law Foundation

The new Civil Transactions Law contains an important general rule in Article 246:

Every act causing harm to another obliges its perpetrator to compensate for the damage, even if the perpetrator lacks discernment.

Article 247 distinguishes between direct harm and harm by causation, while Article 249 recognizes external causes such as force majeure, a third party's act, or the injured person's own act as potential grounds excluding liability where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

This makes misinformation disputes particularly suitable for analysis under the general law of harmful acts.

4. Elements of a Civil Claim

A misinformation damages claim can be analysed through five principal questions:

1. Conduct

What information was published, transmitted, or republished?

2. Wrongfulness

Was the conduct unlawful or otherwise legally sufficient to create responsibility?

3. Damage

What actual harm occurred?

4. Causation

Did the misinformation cause the claimed damage?

5. Remedy

What compensation or other relief is legally appropriate?

Formula

Civil Liability = Harmful Act + Damage + Causal Connection + Attribution + Legally Available Remedy

5. Civil Liability Does Not Depend Entirely on Criminal Liability

An important UAE principle is the separation of civil and criminal responsibility.

Article 245 of the new Civil Transactions Law expressly provides that civil liability does not prejudice criminal liability, and that criminal punishment does not itself determine the scope or amount of civil compensation.

Therefore:

Situation A

A person commits an offence and also causes identifiable harm.

→ Criminal proceedings may exist.
→ Civil compensation may also be claimed.

Situation B

A person's conduct causes civil harm but does not satisfy every element of a criminal offence.

→ A civil claim may still potentially exist if the requirements of civil liability are satisfied.

This distinction is especially important for misinformation.

6. Defamation and Misinformation

Misinformation may overlap with defamation, particularly where false information harms:

• reputation;
• honour;
• dignity;
• professional standing;
• business reputation;
• social status.

But misinformation is broader than defamation.

For example:

“Company X will close tomorrow because it is insolvent.”

This may damage the company's business even though the statement does not necessarily take the form of a traditional personal insult.

Therefore, the civil analysis should consider both:

reputational harm and economic harm.

7. Moral Damage

The earlier Civil Transactions Law expressly recognized damage to honour, reputation, social standing and similar interests as moral damage. The new law continues the broader compensatory approach to harmful acts and permits monetary compensation and, where appropriate, restoration or specific corrective measures. Article 255 provides that compensation is assessed according to the loss suffered and lost profit where these are a natural consequence of the harmful act. Article 256 also permits restoration of the previous position or a specific act connected with the harmful conduct in appropriate circumstances.

Accordingly, misinformation can potentially produce:

Material damage

• lost sales;
• lost contracts;
• loss of employment;
• business interruption;
• loss of customers;
• financial loss.

Moral damage

• reputational injury;
• damage to dignity;
• damage to professional standing;
• emotional or personal harm where legally recognized.

8. Economic Loss from Misinformation

Businesses can suffer substantial economic consequences from false information.

Example

A false online statement says:

“Company A's licence has been cancelled.”

Customers cancel contracts worth AED 2 million.

Company A may attempt to establish:

False statement → customer reaction → lost contracts → financial loss

The claimant must still establish the required legal elements and prove that the claimed loss is sufficiently connected to the wrongful conduct.

Article 255 of the new Civil Transactions Law expressly links compensation to the loss suffered and lost profit when they are a natural consequence of the harmful act.

9. Causation

Causation is often the most difficult issue in misinformation cases.

Consider:

False statement
↓
Public sees statement
↓
Customers react
↓
Sales decline
↓
Company suffers loss

The defendant may argue that the loss resulted from:

• market conditions;
• competitor activity;
• poor management;
• another person's conduct;
• economic circumstances.

The claimant therefore needs to connect the misinformation with the actual damage.

10. Direct and Indirect Harm

The new Civil Transactions Law expressly distinguishes direct harm from harm occurring by causation.

Article 247 provides that direct harm gives rise to compensation, while causal harm is subject to the statutory conditions concerning transgression, intention and causation.

This is highly relevant to social-media misinformation.

Example

Person A publishes a false statement.

Person B reads it and immediately cancels a contract.

That creates a relatively direct causal chain.

By contrast:

Person A publishes a statement → Person B republishes it → Person C reads it → Person D makes a business decision → Company E suffers a loss.

The longer chain requires much closer analysis of causation and attribution.

11. Republishing Misinformation

A particularly important modern issue is republication.

A person may argue:

“I did not create the false information; I only shared it.”

That does not automatically resolve civil responsibility.

The legal analysis may consider:

• what the person knew;
• whether the person adopted the statement;
• whether the person materially amplified it;
• whether the republication caused damage;
• whether the person had a legal duty to verify;
• the circumstances of publication.

A 2024 academic study of UAE law specifically examining publication and republication of incorrect information on social media identifies the general tort framework, causation, damage and contribution as central issues.

12. Multiple Publishers

Misinformation may be distributed by hundreds of people.

For example:

Original publisher → Influencer → 500,000 followers → secondary accounts → news sites

The civil question becomes:

How should responsibility be allocated among multiple contributors?

The court may have to examine:

• each person's conduct;
• contribution to dissemination;
• causal significance;
• knowledge;
• degree of participation;
• resulting damage.

The fact that one person has a much larger audience does not automatically establish the precise amount of that person's legal liability.

13. Social-Media Misinformation

Social media creates special evidentiary and causation problems.

Relevant evidence may include:

• original post;
• repost history;
• screenshots;
• URLs;
• timestamps;
• account records;
• platform logs;
• metadata;
• IP information;
• witness evidence;
• expert evidence;
• engagement statistics.

The claimant should ideally establish:

Who published it + What was published + When + Where + To whom + Why it was harmful + What damage resulted

14. Anonymous Accounts

Anonymous publication creates an attribution problem.

A claimant may know:

“Someone published this false statement.”

But the civil court needs evidence connecting the conduct to a legally responsible person.

Potential evidence can include:

• platform records;
• subscriber information;
• electronic-device evidence;
• IP records;
• authentication records;
• digital forensic evidence.

This makes the Evidence Law No. 35 of 2022 particularly relevant.

15. AI-Generated Misinformation

AI creates a new category of civil disputes.

For example:

An AI system generates a false statement that:

“Director X was convicted of fraud.”

The statement is then published automatically.

Potential defendants may include:

• user;
• publisher;
• platform;
• AI-service provider;
• content distributor.

But liability should not simply be assigned because an AI system generated the content.

The court would need to examine:

Who controlled the system?
Who published the content?
Who owed the relevant duty?
Was the harm foreseeable?
Who caused the publication?

16. Deepfakes

Deepfake videos can create particularly serious misinformation claims.

Examples:

• fake political statements;
• fake business announcements;
• fake criminal confessions;
• manipulated interviews;
• fabricated financial announcements;
• fake endorsements.

Civil claims may potentially involve:

• reputation;
• privacy;
• economic loss;
• personality rights;
• intellectual property;
• contractual loss.

The evidentiary challenge is proving that the digital material is manipulated and identifying its creator or distributor.

17. Business Misinformation

Businesses can be victims of false information concerning:

• insolvency;
• regulatory violations;
• fraud;
• product safety;
• financial performance;
• ownership;
• licences;
• lawsuits;
• government sanctions.

The harm can include:

• loss of customers;
• cancelled contracts;
• financing difficulties;
• reduced investor confidence;
• reputational damage.

Business misinformation therefore may create both moral/reputational and material economic damage.

18. Consumer Misinformation

False statements can also harm consumers.

Examples:

• fake product claims;
• false safety claims;
• fake discounts;
• fabricated reviews;
• false health claims;
• misleading digital advertising.

The dispute may involve both:

• civil liability; and
• consumer-protection legislation.

A business cannot necessarily avoid responsibility simply by describing a materially misleading representation as “marketing.”

19. Misinformation and Privacy

Sometimes misinformation includes personal information.

For example:

A false social-media post publishes a person's name, photograph and alleged criminal history.

Potential legal issues may include:

• defamation;
• privacy;
• personal-data protection;
• civil damages;
• cybercrime legislation.

These causes of action may overlap but are not identical.

20. Misinformation and the UAE Cybercrime Framework

The UAE's Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumors and Cybercrimes provides an important criminal-law framework concerning prohibited digital conduct.

For a civil claimant, however, the crucial question remains:

What legally recognized harm resulted from the conduct?

The existence of a criminal prohibition can support the factual/legal context of a civil claim, but civil compensation still requires analysis of damage and causation.

21. Remedies

Under the new Civil Transactions Law, compensation is not limited to one rigid form.

Article 256 allows the court, depending on circumstances and upon the injured party's request, to:

• award monetary compensation;
• restore the previous position;
• order a specific act connected with the harmful conduct;
• award compensation periodically in appropriate circumstances. 

For misinformation, potentially relevant remedies may therefore include:

1. Monetary compensation

For proven material and moral harm.

2. Removal/correction

Where legally appropriate.

3. Restoration

Where restoration is possible.

4. Other specific relief

Depending upon the applicable legal framework and facts.

A 2026 Dubai civil case, for example, reportedly resulted in AED 80,000 compensation, removal of offensive online material and other measures after a social-media publication was found to involve defamation, insult and privacy violations.

22. Assessment of Damages

The court may consider:

• seriousness of the misinformation;
• extent of publication;
• duration;
• number of recipients;
• reputation of the claimant;
• actual financial loss;
• lost profits;
• causal connection;
• conduct of the claimant;
• degree of contribution by other actors;
• corrective actions.

The fundamental principle is:

Compensation should correspond to legally established damage rather than merely the claimant's requested amount.

23. Expert Evidence

Expert evidence may be particularly important where misinformation allegedly caused business losses.

An expert might analyse:

• sales before publication;
• sales after publication;
• customer cancellations;
• website traffic;
• market conditions;
• social-media reach;
• financial statements;
• lost contracts.

Example

Before misinformation:

Monthly sales = AED 5 million

After publication:

Monthly sales = AED 3 million

Potential loss:

AED 2 million/month

But the claimant cannot simply claim AED 2 million automatically.

The expert and court must examine whether the decline was actually caused by the misinformation rather than unrelated market conditions.

24. Contributory Conduct

The claimant's own conduct may sometimes affect liability or compensation.

For example:

A company knows that a false rumour is circulating but publishes an exaggerated response that causes additional losses.

The court may need to distinguish:

Defendant-caused loss
from
Claimant-created or independently caused loss.

The new Civil Transactions Law recognizes the injured person's act as a potential external cause in Article 249 where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

25. Defences

Potential arguments by a defendant may include:

Truth

The statement was factually correct.

Lack of causation

The claimant's damage was caused by another event.

Lack of attribution

The defendant did not publish the material.

Third-party act

Another person independently caused the loss.

Lack of legally recognized damage

The claimant cannot prove compensable injury.

Lawful conduct

The communication was legally justified in its context.

Evidentiary failure

The claimant cannot authenticate the alleged post or identify its author.

Limitation

The claim was brought after the applicable limitation period.

26. Limitation Period

Under Article 258 of the new Civil Transactions Law, a compensation claim arising from a harmful act is generally subject to a three-year period from the injured person's knowledge of the damage and the person responsible.

Where the claim arises from a crime and the criminal action remains admissible beyond that period, the limitation rule operates differently as provided by Article 258.

The new law also provides an overall 15-year outer period from the occurrence of the harmful act.

This is important for misinformation because digital content can remain online for years.

27. Six+ Case Authorities

Because reported UAE mainland judgments specifically labelled “misinformation damages” are relatively limited, it is important not to manufacture case names. The following authorities include directly relevant UAE decisions and closely related DIFC authorities.

Case 1 — Dubai Court of Cassation, electronic-threat/publication jurisdiction

UAE jurisprudence has recognized UAE jurisdiction where the harmful electronic result occurred in Dubai in disputes involving threats to publish personal material online.

Principle:
Electronic conduct can create UAE jurisdiction where the legally relevant harmful result occurs within the UAE.

Misinformation relevance:
A claimant may need to establish where the harmful digital publication produced its legally relevant effects.

Case 2 — Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance, Facebook publication and attribution

A reported Abu Dhabi case concerned photographs allegedly sent to another person and subsequently published on Facebook.

The court accepted the jurisdictional basis but did not award compensation because the claimant failed to establish that the defendant was the person who published the photographs.

Principle:
Proof of authorship/attribution is essential.

Misinformation relevance:
A screenshot alone may not necessarily prove who controlled the account.

Case 3 — Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance, Facebook impersonation

In another reported case, a defendant allegedly obtained access to the claimant's Facebook account, prevented the claimant from accessing it, and communicated with the claimant's contacts while impersonating the claimant.

The court awarded AED 5,000 in compensation.

Principle:
Digital impersonation can constitute legally compensable harm.

Misinformation relevance:
False statements made through a victim's compromised account can generate both attribution and damages issues.

Case 4 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, substantial compensation for social-media misinformation

A UAE legal study reports an Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation judgment awarding AED 1 million for material damage associated with dissemination of false information.

Principle:
Where misinformation is proved to cause material damage, compensation can be substantial.

Misinformation relevance:
Economic consequences must be proved and linked causally to the publication.

Case 5 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, AED 3 million compensation

The same UAE legal study reports another Abu Dhabi judgment involving approximately AED 3 million in compensation for comparable harmful conduct involving dissemination of false information.

Principle:
Damages depend upon the actual circumstances and extent of proven harm rather than a fixed statutory tariff.

Misinformation relevance:
The scale of dissemination and economic consequences can be relevant to compensation.

Case 6 — Dubai Civil Court, 2026 social-media defamation case

In a 2026 Dubai civil judgment, a defendant was ordered to pay AED 80,000 after social-media publications were found to involve defamation, insult and privacy violations. The court also ordered removal of the material and the judgment was reportedly upheld on appeal and cassation.

Principle:
Online publication can result in both monetary compensation and corrective/removal measures.

Misinformation relevance:
Digital reputational harm may be remedied through more than money alone.

Case 7 — Al Ain Civil Court, 2026 online threats/defamation

In a 2026 Al Ain case, a civil court awarded AED 40,000 for material and psychological harm following conduct involving social-media threats, insults and defamation, after a separate criminal conviction.

Principle:
Criminal proceedings and civil compensation can operate separately.

Misinformation relevance:
A criminal conviction may provide important factual context, but the civil court still assesses the compensable damage.

Case 8 — Eshraq Investments PJSC v Shehab M. Gargash & Others

[2021] DIFC CFI 077

This DIFC authority is relevant to reputational damage and the requirement for an underlying actionable claim.

Misinformation relevance:
Reputational damage cannot simply be assumed; the claimant must establish an actionable legal basis and relevant harm.

Case 9 — IDBI Bank Ltd v Amira C Foods International DMCC

[2019] DIFC CA 014

This DIFC appellate authority is relevant to general damages for business reputation and the need for damages to remain reasonable and supported by the circumstances.

Misinformation relevance:
Business reputation can have measurable legal value, but damages must be grounded in the evidence.

Case 10 — Marwan Ahmad Lutfi v DIFC Authority

[2012] DIFC CFI 003

This authority concerns evidentiary requirements relating to alleged reputational injury.

Misinformation relevance:
A claimant must provide evidence supporting the alleged reputational harm rather than relying solely upon assertion.

Case 11 — Marwan Lutfi v DIFC Authority

[2013] DIFC CA 003

The appellate proceedings are relevant to the treatment of the defamation/reputational claim.

Misinformation relevance:
It demonstrates the importance of establishing an actionable claim and proving the elements required for reputational damages.

Case 12 — Ludiala v Lucaan Limited

[2020] DIFC SCT 139

This authority is useful concerning proof of actual reputational damage.

Misinformation relevance:
The existence of an offensive or damaging statement does not automatically establish the precise amount of compensable loss.

28. Case-Law Summary Table

Important: the DIFC authorities apply DIFC law and are not binding precedents for mainland UAE courts. They are useful comparative authorities on reputation, evidence, contractual jurisdiction and damages.

29. Misinformation Through AI: Liability Model

Modern misinformation may be produced without a human manually writing the false statement.

For example:

AI model → generates false allegation → platform publishes it → 1 million people view it → company loses contracts

Potential responsibility must be analysed separately for:

AI developer

Did it owe the relevant legal duty?

Platform

Did it publish, distribute or control the content?

User

Did the user knowingly create or distribute the misinformation?

Employer/company

Was the AI used within its business activity?

Distributor

Did another actor materially republish the information?

The court should avoid treating “AI” as a legal person responsible merely because it generated the words.

30. Digital Evidence in Misinformation Claims

A strong claim should ideally establish:

Content + Source + Time + Publication + Audience + Falsity/Unlawfulness + Harm + Causation

Important evidence includes:

• original electronic record;
• metadata;
• platform records;
• screenshots;
• server logs;
• blockchain records where applicable;
• email headers;
• witness testimony;
• expert reports;
• financial statements;
• customer communications;
• evidence of lost contracts.

This makes the UAE Evidence Law No. 35 of 2022 particularly important.

31. Misinformation and Freedom of Expression

A civil claim should not be understood as meaning that every inaccurate statement automatically creates liability.

The legal system must distinguish between:

• factual allegations;
• opinions;
• criticism;
• fair comment where legally protected;
• legitimate reporting;
• good-faith communications;
• genuinely false factual assertions;
• malicious or unlawful publication.

The precise classification depends on the applicable law and facts.

The important civil-law question is whether the particular conduct satisfies the requirements for liability and caused compensable harm.

32. Practical Example

Facts

A UAE company has an online reputation worth millions of dirhams.

A social-media account publishes:

“Company X has secretly lost its UAE licence and is about to be shut down.”

The statement is false.

Within one week:

• three customers cancel contracts;
• a bank delays financing;
• employees resign;
• the company's sales fall.

Legal analysis

Step 1 — Publication

Was the statement actually published?

Step 2 — Attribution

Who published it?

Step 3 — Wrongfulness

Was the statement unlawful?

Step 4 — Falsity

Can the company prove the statement was false?

Step 5 — Causation

Did the statement cause the cancellations?

Step 6 — Damage

What financial and reputational damage occurred?

Step 7 — Evidence

Can financial records establish the loss?

Step 8 — Remedy

What compensation and corrective relief are legally available?

33. Important Formula for Damages

A useful study formula is:

Recoverable Damage = Actual Loss + Natural Lost Profit + Legally Recognized Moral Damage

subject to:

Proof + Causation + Natural Consequence + Applicable Legal Limits

For misinformation:

Misinformation Loss = Publication Effect × Causal Contribution × Proven Economic/Reputational Harm

This is an analytical formula, not a statutory UAE damages formula.

34. Difference Between Misinformation and Defamation

Thus:

All defamatory misinformation may involve misinformation, but not all misinformation is necessarily defamation.

35. Key UAE Legal Principles

Principle 1 — Harm is central

Article 246 establishes the broad compensation principle for harmful acts.

Principle 2 — Causation matters

Article 247 distinguishes direct harm from harm by causation.

Principle 3 — External causes can defeat liability

Article 249 addresses force majeure, third-party conduct and the injured person's own act.

Principle 4 — Compensation follows proven damage

Article 255 focuses on loss and natural lost profit.

Principle 5 — Non-monetary corrective measures may be available

Article 256 allows restoration or a specific act in appropriate cases.

Principle 6 — Civil and criminal responsibility are distinct

Article 245 expressly preserves the distinction.

Principle 7 — Limitation applies

Article 258 generally provides a three-year period from knowledge of damage and the responsible person, with a 15-year outer period.

36. Examination Answer

Misinformation damages and civil claims in the UAE are principally governed by the general law of harmful acts, supplemented by cybercrime, privacy, evidence, consumer and other special legislation.

Under the Civil Transactions Law now effective from 1 June 2026, Article 246 establishes the general principle that a person causing harm must compensate the victim. Article 247 addresses direct and causal harm, Article 249 recognizes certain external causes, Article 255 governs the assessment of loss and natural lost profit, Article 256 provides forms of compensation, and Article 258 establishes limitation rules.

Misinformation can cause material damage, moral/reputational damage, or both. The claimant must establish the relevant harmful conduct, attribution, legally recognized damage and causal connection. Digital evidence such as screenshots, metadata, platform logs, electronic communications and expert evidence can be crucial.

Reported UAE cases involving social-media publication and impersonation demonstrate the importance of proving who published the material, whether it caused actual harm and what compensation is justified. Recent Dubai and Al Ain decisions also demonstrate that online defamation and related digital misconduct can result in civil compensation and removal/corrective measures.

DIFC authorities such as Eshraq Investments v Gargash, IDBI Bank v Amira C Foods, Marwan Lutfi v DIFC Authority and Ludiala v Lucaan provide useful comparative jurisprudence concerning reputational harm and proof of damages, but they should not be treated as binding mainland UAE precedents.

37. Final Revision Points

Remember these 15 points:

1. Misinformation can create civil as well as criminal consequences.
2. The new Civil Transactions Law is effective from 1 June 2026.
3. Article 246 provides the general harmful-act compensation principle.
4. Direct and causal harm are distinguished.
5. Attribution is essential in online cases.
6. Republishing can potentially create liability depending on the circumstances.
7. Material loss must be proved.
8. Lost profits must satisfy the natural-consequence requirement.
9. Reputation and dignity can generate legally recognized moral damage.
10. AI-generated misinformation creates new attribution problems.
11. Platform liability depends on the applicable duty and circumstances.
12. Digital evidence is central to proving online publication.
13. Criminal conviction and civil compensation are legally distinct.
14. Corrective/removal relief may accompany monetary compensation where legally available.
15. The general limitation period under Article 258 is three years from knowledge of damage and the responsible person, subject to the statutory exceptions and the 15-year outer period. 

Final Formula

UAE Misinformation Civil Claim = Publication/Conduct + Attribution + Wrongfulness + Damage + Causation + Evidence + Appropriate Remedy

The central principle is:

False information does not become compensable merely because it is false; civil liability depends upon the applicable legal duty, legally recognized harm, attribution, causation and proof of the resulting damage.