The new Organic Law on the Right of Rectification will update the legal framework governing the right of rectification, bringing it in line with the digital information landscape. It will affect influencers, press outlets, and any digital platform that publishes inaccurate information.

Article written by

Conesa Legal

At Conesa Legal, a legal advisory firm based in Barcelona, we have a team of lawyers specialized in all areas of law. We also provide comprehensive advisory and management services covering payroll, tax and accounting, and corporate compliance for both companies and self-employed professionals. We stand out for our expertise in labor law and social security, offering a highly specialized and personalized service since 1976. Our services include both preventive and reactive legal advice and representation, tailored to the needs of businesses and workers alike. Our multilingual team provides legal assistance in English, French, and Spanish, and is well prepared to support a broad range of local and international clients, whether they are companies seeking comprehensive legal solutions or individuals in need of personalized legal advice.

View professional profile

The right of rectification allows individuals affected by inaccurate information published in media outlets or on digital platforms to request the public correction of that information.

Judicial Procedure for the Right of Correction

• 1. Legal Action:
  • If the correction is not published or is incomplete, the affected party may file a claim before the competent court within 7 working days.
  • The claim is straightforward and does not require a lawyer or legal representative.
• 2. Fast-Track Hearing:
  • An oral hearing is held with no written defence phase.
  • Only evidence that can be presented at the hearing itself is admissible.
  • The ruling is issued within a maximum of one day following the hearing.
• 3. ruling:
  • The court may order partial publication of the correction, removing irrelevant opinions while permitting those necessary for context.
  • The correction must be carried out in accordance with the terms set out in the ruling.
    
    

Online Reputation Lawyer: 

Draft Bill Transcript:

ORGANIC LAW XX/2025, OF XX OF XXXXXX, REGULATING THE RIGHT OF CORRECTION

(version 16.12.2024)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

I

Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March, regulating the right of rectification, has fulfilled its objective of developing and defining the content of a right that, although not expressly enshrined in the Spanish Constitution, serves an essential function as an instrument for protecting certain fundamental rights, including the right to honour and personal image, and the right to freely communicate and receive truthful information through any means of dissemination.

As established by law, this right is conceived as the entitlement of any person affected by information published in the media, concerning facts they consider inaccurate and whose dissemination they believe may be prejudicial to them, to correct that information by providing their own account of events and requesting its publication through the same media outlets.

Over the long period during which Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March has been in force, the Constitutional Court has progressively clarified the nature and significance of the right of rectification, highlighting its dual function. On the one hand, it serves as a means by which the person concerned can protect their own right to honour, or other personal interests closely linked to their dignity, social standing or public reputation, against coverage that affects how that person is presented to the public. On the other hand, it acts as a complement to the information made available to the public, promoting the free formation of public opinion by providing a "counter-account" of the facts contained in a news item published by a media outlet. In this regard, the Constitutional Court has explained that the exercise of the right of rectification cannot be regarded as an obstacle to freedom of information, rather, it is "conducive to it", because rectification "allows competing versions to be compared, where neither has been definitively established as accurate or definitively discredited as false, that is, with the force of res judicata" (Constitutional Court ruling 139/2021 of 12 July, Legal Ground 4, summarising established constitutional doctrine).

in accordance with its definition under Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March, which the present Organic Law preserves, this right is not to be equated with a broad right of reply. It is limited to the possibility of challenging a specific factual basis; in other words, it does not extend to contesting opinions expressed by a media outlet, but solely to correcting the facts set out in a particular piece of reporting, so that the right-holder may put forward their own version of those facts. Its function is confined to making both accounts available to the public. Rectification does not engage with the truth or falsity of either the original information published or the subsequent correction, that question is resolved through other legal mechanisms available to individuals. It is for this reason that the exercise of the right of rectification, which operates through a swift and straightforward procedure, is compatible with criminal, civil, or other types of legal action.

More than forty years have passed since the enactment of Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March, and the changes in mass media brought about by new technologies have been profound. They have affected not only the individuals who produce and publish information, but also the channels through which it is distributed, and even the content and form of the messages themselves.

Traditional media, the written press, radio and television, have been joined by a strong and growing digital press. Beyond that, a large volume of information now circulates through online platforms and digital services, which have become ordinary channels for the distribution of content. This raises new challenges for the exercise of the right of rectification and the protection of fundamental rights.

Another significant shift is that information circulating through these new media often originates from individual users or private individuals with large followings, who play a role as opinion-formers closely resembling that traditionally held by journalists. In other cases, these media carry messages from anonymous sources, or content generated through artificial intelligence.

In this new context, changes in the process of social communication also affect the structure and content of messages. On one hand, in order to capture the audience's attention and encourage engagement, there is a growing tendency to simplify content and, at times, to give it an emotional slant at the expense of a complete and objective account of the facts. On the other hand, the problem of false or distorted news, so-called fake news, has acquired considerable social relevance.

A further consideration is that information circulating through digital platforms and media spreads and is replicated with extraordinary ease, reaching any part of the world at remarkable speed. The specific issue of the right of rectification on the internet has been addressed in Spanish law, albeit in an incidental and limited way, by Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December on the Protection of Personal Data and the Guarantee of Digital Rights, Article 85 of which expressly recognises this right and defines its scope as part of the "Guarantee of Digital Rights" framework set out in Title X of that Act.

At present, however, in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the right of rectification, particularly in digital environments, a more comprehensive and specific regulatory framework is needed to update the regime set out in Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March, so that it encompasses the realities of publishing information through digital media and online platforms.

In this context, the Government has also adopted the so-called "Action Plan for Democracy", with the aim of reinforcing freedom of expression and guaranteeing the right to accurate information enshrined in Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution. This plan gives concrete effect to, and builds upon, the recommendations already approved by the European Commission in 2020 and 2023.

Among the various lines of action structuring the Plan is the strengthening of transparency, pluralism and accountability within our information ecosystem. In line with this objective, the Plan also identifies the need to update the regulatory framework governing the right of rectification.

In short, this Organic Law gives effect to these provisions by updating the applicable rules and making it easier for individuals to exercise this right.

II

This Organic Law retains much of the framework established by Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March. The principal changes relate to situations where the information to be corrected has been published through digital media or online platforms, in the latter case, limited to high-reach users whose capacity to disseminate information is equal to or greater than that of traditional media outlets. The reform has also been used to introduce various adjustments: some are designed to make it easier to exercise the right of rectification, while others bring its regulation into line with legislative developments since 1984, and incorporate into the text of the law certain contributions from the case law produced during this period.

The most significant innovations are as follows: Article 1, in defining the sources of information subject to rectification, refers not only to media outlets, including digital media, but also to high-reach users of online platforms and equivalent services.

These are users who disseminate information and other content through such platforms and who, by virtue of their follower count, enjoy a reach and impact comparable to that of traditional media outlets, effectively acting as genuine shapers of public communication and opinion; and who must therefore be subject to the possibility of having their content corrected.

The concept of an online platform is drawn from Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (the Digital Services Act), which defines this concept in Article 3(1)(i).

This same Article 1 also introduces two changes regarding the persons entitled to exercise the right. First, it makes an express reference to persons with disabilities, in terms consistent with Law 8/2021 of 2 June, reforming civil and procedural legislation to support persons with disabilities in the exercise of their legal capacity. Second, the range of persons who may exercise the right of rectification in respect of information concerning deceased individuals has been extended, now including close family members and, where applicable, any person expressly designated by the deceased for that purpose.

Article 2, which governs the exercise of the right, introduces three significant changes. The first is an extension of the time limit for submitting a rectification request, from seven to ten calendar days, in order to make it easier to exercise.

Secondly, the procedure for handling a rectification request is adapted to the type of media outlet in which the information to be corrected originally appeared.

With regard to traditional media outlets, the existing procedure is retained, whereby the request is sent to the media outlet by any means that provides evidence of the date and receipt of the communication. However, the requirement that the request be addressed specifically to the editor-in-chief has been removed, as this role is not always easy to identify within the organisational structure of certain outlets. Accordingly, addressing the request to the editor-in-chief is now optional.

With regard to online platforms and equivalent services, the procedure has been adapted to reflect their specific characteristics and operational model. It is often the users of these platforms and services who act as the communicators of the opinions and information circulated in these digital environments, deciding autonomously what to publish on their channels or profiles. In many respects, their conduct is comparable to editorial decision-making or the exercise of editorial responsibility traditionally attributed to media outlets (as recognised in Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU [European Media Freedom Act], and in Law 13/2022 of 7 July on Audiovisual Communication). This is particularly true of the high-profile users referred to above.

Adapting to this new digital environment requires that, where it is the users of online platforms who autonomously decide, and effectively control, the information and content published on the profiles or channels they manage, the right of rectification must be exercised against those users, since it is they who are responsible for managing the profile or channel created on the platform, as well as for selecting and organising the content published within it.

For this reason, the text or content of the rectification shall be sent to the user who exercises effective control over the selection of content or information, within the same timeframe and subject to the same formal requirements as those applicable in the case of media outlets.

To make the exercise of the right of rectification more effective, online platforms are required to provide a mechanism that is easily visible and accessible, enabling the applicant, whether or not they are a user of the platform in question, to have a tool that guarantees the direct and immediate transmission of the rectification, as well as confirmation of receipt and tracking of the process. The aim is to avoid imposing disproportionate obligations on platforms or, in relation to the exercise of the right of rectification, drawing them into a potential dispute between the parties over content that they merely intermediate. This obligation is also imposed on digital media outlets, in a manner consistent with how they disseminate information.

Thirdly, although the provision retains the basic principle arising from the very nature of the right of rectification, namely, that it must be limited to the facts referred to in the information and must not be accompanied by opinions or value judgements, this principle is qualified by a novel exception, in line with the most recent case law, allowing such opinions or judgements to be included where they are strictly necessary to understand the context and cannot be separated from the facts.

Article 3 retains the current framework governing publication of rectifications by media outlets, based on the principles of speed, completeness, equivalent prominence, and free-of-charge publication. However, certain additional specific rules have been established depending on the medium in which the information was originally published.

Where the information appeared on a platform, the obligation to publish the rectification falls on the user who exercises effective control over the selection of content or information, a concept drawn from Act 13/2022 of 7 July on Audiovisual Communication. That obligation is fulfilled by publishing the rectification in a prominent position alongside the original content, together with an express notice indicating that it constitutes the exercise of the right of rectification.

Where the information was disseminated through digital media, the persistence of online content requires a two-pronged approach to ensure the rectification is effective: the rectification text must be published via a new link to the original content, with comparable prominence to that content, and a corresponding notice clearly indicating its nature must also be placed alongside the original in a visible position.

Where the information was disseminated across multiple channels, whether traditional media outlets or online platforms, the rectification must be published on all of them, in compliance with the requirements applicable to each. This measure acknowledges the widespread practice of distributing content across multiple platforms and aims to ensure that the rectification reaches the same audience as the original information.

Articles 4 to 7 govern the procedural framework for civil court proceedings, which may be initiated by the affected party where they consider that their right has not been duly observed by the party under the obligation.

As with Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March, this Organic Law incorporates, with the same specific features, the rules governing summary oral proceedings set out in Act 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure.

As a key procedural innovation, the legislation permits the submission of a concise claim, whilst dispensing with the requirement for a written response to the claim in the interests of procedural efficiency.

The legislation also takes into account the established line of case law that allows the court to carry out a balancing exercise, ordering the partial publication of a correction by removing non-essential opinions or value judgements whilst retaining those that are strictly necessary to understand the context. This avoids a situation in which correction texts that have not fully complied with the requirement to remove opinions or value judgements are rendered entirely ineffective.

III

In drafting this Organic Law, the principles of good regulation referred to in Article 129 of Law 39/2015 of 1 October on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations have been observed, namely the principles of necessity, effectiveness, proportionality, legal certainty, transparency and efficiency.

With regard to the principles of necessity and effectiveness, the foregoing sections demonstrate the justification for each of the measures adopted, which are considered likely to enhance the practical exercise of the right of correction in light of the new challenges posed by the dissemination of information in the digital environment.

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, care has been taken to ensure that the scope and content of the new obligations imposed on online platforms are strictly limited to what is necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of the right of correction where information is disseminated through those platforms.

The law also addresses the requirements of legal certainty: on the one hand, it aligns the regulation of this right with the legislative reforms that have taken place since 1984 and that affect its substance; on the other, it incorporates into its positive legal framework certain rules that have developed through settled judicial practice.

In accordance with the principle of transparency, the legislative process for this Organic Law has enabled the participation of those to whom it is addressed. Furthermore, the law clearly sets out the objectives of the measures it introduces, and both its explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment contain a detailed explanation of the reasons underpinning them.

In keeping with the principle of efficiency, the law introduces no new administrative burdens and its content has no impact on public expenditure.

Article 1. Purpose and holders of the right of rectification.

1. Every person, whether natural or legal, has the right to rectify factual information referring to them which they consider inaccurate and whose dissemination may cause them harm, where that information has been published by any media outlet, or by high-reach users on online platforms or equivalent services.

For the purposes of this Organic Law, a user shall be considered a high-reach user if, at any point during the preceding calendar year, they reach a follower count of 100,000 or more on a single platform; or a follower count of 200,000 or more in aggregate, taking into account all platforms on which the user is active.

2. The right of rectification may be exercised by the affected person referred to, or by their representatives. Persons with disabilities may exercise it personally, or with the support of voluntary, court-appointed, or de facto assistants.

If the affected person has died, the right of rectification may be exercised by their spouse or registered partner; their descendants, ascendants, siblings, or heirs; or any person expressly designated by the deceased.

Article 2. Exercise of the right.

1. The right shall be exercised by sending the text or content of the rectification to the editor of the media outlet, or directly to the outlet itself, within ten calendar days of the publication or dissemination of the information to be rectified, in a manner that allows the date and receipt of the communication to be verified.

For these purposes, digital media outlets must provide an easily accessible and visible mechanism allowing the applicant to submit the correction text or content directly and immediately, ensuring that the date and receipt are recorded and that the process can be tracked.

2. Where information has been published by high-profile users on online platforms or equivalent services, the correction shall be sent to the user who exercises effective control over the selection of the content or information.

Online platforms or equivalent services must provide the mechanism referred to in the preceding paragraph for submitting corrections and tracking the process.

3. The correction must be limited to the facts contained in the information being corrected, and must not include the affected party's opinions or assessments, unless these are strictly necessary to understand the context and cannot be separated from the facts. Its length must not substantially exceed that of the information being corrected, unless this is absolutely necessary.

Article 3. Publication of the correction.

1. Provided the right is exercised in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, the editor of the media outlet, the outlet itself, or, in the case of information published on online platforms, the user who exercises effective control over the selection of the content or information, must publish or broadcast the correction in full within three days of its receipt, with prominence comparable to that given to the original information being corrected, and without any commentary or annotation.
2. If the information being corrected was broadcast in a publication whose publication frequency does not allow the correction to be disseminated within the stated period, it shall be published in the next issue.
3. Where the news item or information to be rectified was broadcast on a radio or television programme whose transmission schedule does not permit publication of the rectification within three days, the person requesting rectification may require it to be broadcast in a slot of similar audience reach and relevance, within that same period.
4. Where the information to be rectified was disseminated via online platforms, the requirements of this article shall be met by publishing the rectification in a prominent position alongside the original content and by including an express notice stating that it constitutes the exercise of the right of rectification.
5. Where the information was disseminated through digital media, the rectification must be published by means of a new link to the original content, with comparable prominence to that given to the information being rectified, without prejudice to the obligation to include the clarifying notice referred to in the preceding paragraph.
6. Where the information was disseminated across different media outlets or various online platforms, the rectification must be published or broadcast on all the media and platforms through which it was originally disseminated, in compliance with the relevant paragraphs of this article as applicable to each distribution channel used.
7. The publication or broadcast of the rectification shall always be free of charge.

Article 4. Time limit for bringing an action and court with jurisdiction.

If, within the time limits set out in the preceding article, the rectification has not been published or disseminated, or express notification has been given that it will not be published, or it has been published or disseminated without complying with the requirements of that article, the affected party may bring a rectification action within the following seven working days before the court of their place of domicile, or, where they have no domicile in Spain, before the court of the place where the media outlet has its registered office, branch or establishment, at the claimant's election, or before the court of the domicile of the user who, on an online platform, is responsible for selecting the content or information in question.

Article 5. Judicial rectification procedure.

1. The action shall be brought by means of a concise claim, without the need for a Solicitor or Procurator, accompanied by the rectification and evidence that it was submitted within the prescribed time limit; the rectified information shall also be submitted if it was disseminated in writing; and, in any other case, a reproduction or description thereof as faithful as possible.
2. The court, acting on its own motion and without hearing the defendant, shall issue an order refusing to admit the claim if it considers itself to lack jurisdiction or finds the rectification to be manifestly inadmissible. Otherwise, it shall summon the person seeking rectification and the editor of the media outlet, where one exists, or the user exercising effective control over the selection of the content or information if such content was disseminated on an online platform, to an oral hearing.
3. The hearing shall be held within seven days of the date on which the claim was filed. Notice of the hearing shall be given in the manner provided for in Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure, together with service of a copy of the claim on the defendant.
4. Where the court has declared a lack of jurisdiction, it shall refer the proceedings to the court it considers territorially competent, following consultation with the Public Prosecutor's Office.

Article 6. Conduct of the procedure.

1. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure governing oral proceedings, subject to the following modifications:
2. The hearing shall be scheduled without affording the defendant an opportunity to file a written response to the claim.
3. The Judge may, on his or her own motion, require the defendant to submit or produce the information at issue, together with any recording or written transcript thereof.
4. Only evidence that is relevant and capable of being adduced at the hearing shall be admitted.
5. The ruling shall be handed down on the same day as the hearing or on the following day.
6. The operative part of the judgment shall be limited either to refusing the rectification or to ordering its publication or dissemination in the manner and within the time limits set out in Article 3, running from the date of notification of the ruling, which shall order the payment of costs against the party whose claims have been wholly rejected.

However, the ruling may order partial publication of the correction, removing opinions or value judgements, whilst permitting the inclusion of those that are strictly necessary to understand the context and cannot be separated from the facts.

3. A ruling upholding the request for correction must be complied with in its own terms.
4. These proceedings are compatible with any criminal, civil or other legal actions that may be available to the person harmed by the disseminated information.

Article 7. Appeals regime.

In these judicial proceedings, the appeals regime established under Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil Procedure shall apply.

Sole Transitional Provision. Rules applicable to pending judicial proceedings.

Judicial proceedings concerning the exercise of the right of correction that are pending conclusion at the time this Organic Law enters into force shall continue to be conducted in accordance with the rules in force at the date they were initiated.

Sole Repealing Provision. Repeal of legislation.

Organic Law 2/1984 of 26 March, governing the right of correction, and any provisions of the same or lower rank that conflict with this Organic Law are hereby repealed.

First Final Provision. Legislative competence.

This Organic Law is enacted pursuant to Article 149.1.6, 8 and 27 of the Spanish Constitution, which vests in the State exclusive competence over procedural legislation, civil legislation, and the basic rules governing the press, radio, television and, in general, all social media and means of communication.

Second Final Provision. Regulatory development.

The Government is authorised to adopt such provisions as may be necessary for the development and application of this Organic Law.

Third Final Provision. Entry into force.

This Organic Law shall enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Spanish Official Gazette (BOE).