1. Introduction

Cyberattacks via instant messengers have become a widespread means of defamation and insult in the digital age [1]. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable due to their developing psyche and active digital socialization [4]. Effective judicial protection requires adaptation of traditional legal approaches to the digital environment [2]. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly emphasized that the rules on protection of honor and dignity apply fully to information disseminated on the Internet, including through messengers [13].

2. Material and methods

General scientific (analysis, synthesis, system-structural) and special legal (formal-legal, comparative-legal, interpretation) methods were used [3]. The empirical base includes resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 of 24.02.2005 [13], court decisions for 2020–2025, data from Roskomnadzor, sociological surveys [5], as well as a review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for 2024 [14]. The theoretical basis consists of works on judicial discourse [1], legal culture and legal education [2].

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Specifics of cyberattacks in instant messengers

Cyberattacks on honor and dignity in messengers have three key features that distinguish them from traditional defamation. First, anonymity: offenders use virtual phone numbers, VPN services, proxy servers, and disposable accounts. This makes it extremely difficult to identify the real perpetrator without the cooperation of the messenger operator [7]. Second, virality: defamatory information spreads rapidly through forwarding to groups and channels, multiplying the harm. A single insulting message can reach thousands of users within hours. Third, persistence: even after deletion, messages often remain in caches, device memory, and third‑party backups. This creates challenges for both victims’ seeking removal and courts trying to establish the facts.

According to a review of the Moscow City Court for 2024, about 65% of cases involving defamation in instant messengers are dismissed due to the impossibility of identifying the offender [5]. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its 2024 practice review also noted that the anonymity of offenders remains the main obstacle to access to justice in such cases [14]. Researchers note that this low rate of successful prosecution undermines public confidence in the judicial system and encourages further cyber aggression [4]. Similar trends are observed in other jurisdictions, indicating a systemic problem.

3.2. Proving defamation and digital evidence

Under Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, any lawfully obtained evidence is admissible in court [11]. In cases of cyberattacks in messengers, typical evidence includes screenshots, screen recordings, and notarial inspection of web pages. However, a notary cannot inspect a message that has already been deleted or is in a closed chat to which he has no access [7]. This creates a significant gap in the evidence base.

Forensic computer examinations can recover deleted correspondence and establish the sender’s IP address or MAC address of the device. Such examinations are often ordered by courts when the victim provides initial evidence of the attack. Nevertheless, these examinations are expensive (ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles) and time‑consuming (taking from 2 to 6 months) [12]. For many families, especially those with limited income, this renders justice financially unattainable. Some scholars propose shifting the burden of proof to the messenger operator, requiring them to store user data for a certain period and provide it upon court request [2]. This approach has been successfully implemented in several European countries [10]. As noted by Churilov and Semenova, the development of unified standards for digital evidence in cyberbullying cases would significantly increase the effectiveness of judicial protection.

3.3. Impact on adolescent mental health

The impact of cyberattacks on the mental health of adolescents is particularly severe and well‑documented in psychological research [6]. Systematic insults, threats, and the spread of false information in messengers lead to anxiety disorders, depressive episodes, social isolation, and suicidal ideation. According to the World Health Organization, adolescents who have experienced cyberbullying are 2.5 times more likely to report self‑harm attempts compared to their peers who have not been victims. A meta‑analysis of 80 studies involving over 150,000 adolescents confirmed a strong positive correlation between cyberbullying and depression, with effect sizes comparable to those of offline bullying [10].

Russian legislation does not contain a special offense of «cyberbullying». As a comparative legal analysis by Petrova and Smirnova shows, many foreign countries have already introduced special rules against cyberbullying, which could be adapted to Russian realities [9]. Acts of defamation and insult in the digital space are qualified under Article 128.1 of the Criminal Code (defamation) or Article 5.61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (insult) [11]. However, these provisions were drafted for offline communications and do not fully capture the unique harms of cyberattacks, such as virality, permanence, and anonymous repetition. Compensation for moral damage in such cases rarely exceeds 10,000–20,000 rubles, which is incomparable to the psychological harm caused. For example, in case No. 2‑3456/2024, the St. Petersburg City Court awarded 15,000 rubles to a teenager who had been bullied in a Telegram channel for several months, while her psychotherapy costs exceeded 80,000 rubles [12]. This disparity highlights the urgent need for legislative reform.

3.4. Role of judicial discourse and legal culture

The effectiveness of judicial protection depends heavily on the ability of judges to interpret digital evidence and understand the psychological context of a cyberattack. According to Bondarev, Bashmakova and Sinina, judicial discourse is «a complex communicative space where different meanings, values and interpretations collide» [1]. In the context of cyberattacks, this means that a judge cannot limit himself to the formal presence of defamatory information. He must assess the real impact of the information on the victim’s psyche, especially when the victim is a minor. Studies show that many judges lack training in digital forensics and adolescent psychology, which leads to inconsistent decisions and low compensation amounts [3].

The value component of legal culture is equally important. Scholars emphasize that respect for the honor and dignity of another person should become an internal guideline for every lawyer. Without such a value orientation, even the most advanced legislation will remain ineffective. Legal education must therefore include training in working with digital evidence, child psychology, and the ethics of protecting personal rights on the Internet [2]. Some Russian law schools have already introduced specialized courses on «Digital Law» and «Cyberbullying and Legal Remedies», but these initiatives remain sporadic [4]. A systematic approach is needed, including mandatory continuing education for judges handling cyber defamation cases. The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Resolution No. 3 directly indicates that courts should take into account the special nature of the dissemination of information on the Internet when considering such disputes [13].

3.5. Proposals for improving legal regulation

Based on the analysis, the following measures are proposed to improve judicial protection against cyberattacks in instant messengers:

One, legislators should define «cyberbullying» as a separate offense in the Civil Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses. Special rules for proving defamation in messengers should be established, including a presumption of the messenger operator’s good faith, which would oblige the operator to provide data on the sender at the court’s request [9]. This approach has been successfully implemented in Germany and South Korea [8].

Two, a mandatory pre‑trial procedure should be introduced. The victim would send a complaint to the messenger administration demanding the removal of defamatory information and the preservation of sender data. If the administration fails to comply within 72 hours, an administrative fine of 1 to 5 million rubles would be imposed [5]. This would incentivize platforms to cooperate actively.

Three, specialized judicial panels (or individual judges) should be created for cases involving the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation in the digital environment. Judges assigned to such panels would be required to undergo mandatory training in digital forensics, child psychology, and the technical aspects of messenger operations [7]. Similar specialized courts exist in France and Canada, where they have shown high efficiency [10].

Four, the amount of compensation for moral damage to minor victims should be increased. A lower threshold of 50,000 rubles is proposed, with the court having the right to allocate part of the compensation (up to 50%) to pay for the victim’s psychological rehabilitation [12]. This would ensure that compensation serves not only a punitive but also a restorative function.

Five, anonymous support mechanisms should be developed for adolescents. These include 24/7 hotlines, chatbots in messengers (e.g., Telegram bots), and online consultations with lawyers and psychologists [6]. Such services would lower the barrier to seeking help and encourage victims to report cyberattacks, thereby increasing the number of cases that reach court. A draft federal law on combating bullying, including in the Internet, is currently under consideration in the State Duma, which, if adopted, could become an important element of the legislative framework [8].

4. Conclusion

Judicial protection of honor and dignity from cyberattacks in instant messengers faces systemic obstacles: anonymity of offenders, virality of defamatory information, high cost and long duration of digital forensics, and the absence of a special offense of «cyberbullying» in Russian law [1; 5]. Adolescents are the most vulnerable group, suffering long‑term mental health damage including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation [6]. However, compensation amounts awarded by courts remain extremely low and do not cover even the cost of psychotherapy [12]. Improving the situation requires a comprehensive approach: legislative consolidation of cyberbullying, creation of specialized judicial panels, mandatory pre‑trial procedures, increased compensation for minors, and the development of anonymous support mechanisms [2; 9]. Only such systemic changes can ensure effective judicial protection in the digital age.