High-profile case9/22/2026

Efi Naveh Filed a NIS 10 Million Lawsuit Following a Nationwide Billboard Campaign

Attorney Efi Naveh, former chairman of the Israel Bar Association, filed a NIS 10 million lawsuit against billionaire Alex Sklar and against parties he claims participated in an advertising campaign against him. The defendants reject the allegations, and the original source did not provide the case number, the court, or any judicial ruling.

Key facts

•Amount sought: NIS 10 million
•Plaintiff: Attorney Efi Naveh
•Principal defendant: Alex Sklar
•Case number: Not provided in the original source
•Court and exact filing date: Not provided in the original source
•Alleged causes of action: Defamation and unjust enrichment

The Allegations Against the Campaign

Naveh claims that his photograph appeared on billboards and buses across Israel, alongside labels including “traitor” and “forger,” as well as claims relating to his candidacy in the Likud primaries. According to him, these were false and humiliating publications and part of a personal, systematic campaign. He claims that he had no personal, business, or professional relationship with Sklar.

Background to the Dispute

According to the statement of claim, Naveh believes he became a target because he is the brother of Tzvika Naveh. Tzvika owns a group of companies engaged in consulting, business intelligence, and investigations, which provided services to Sklar’s ex-wife during their divorce proceedings; Tzvika later married Sklar’s ex-wife. These are the plaintiff’s allegations, and no ruling has yet been issued regarding them.

Who Was Sued

In addition to Sklar, the defendants include strategic consultant Ronen Tzur; advertising companies Canaan Media, Norstar Media, and Dil Tov Advertising 2005; as well as Egged Transportation Ltd. and Extra Public Transportation. According to the article, the lawsuit also named Ohad Gably, CEO of Canaan Media; Nur Moshe, the controlling shareholder of Norstar Media; Gilad Riklin, CEO of Egged; and Shuki Perry, CEO of Extra Transportation. Naveh attributes responsibility to the various parties for disseminating defamatory statements, and alleges unjust enrichment at his expense against some of them.

The Defendants’ Response and Status of the Proceedings

Tzur Communications stated that, in its view, Naveh’s reputation and integrity will be examined in court. Sklar and the defense team described the proceeding as a baseless silencing lawsuit and argued that the billboards constituted legitimate public criticism during a period in which Naveh was seeking voters’ trust. The source describes only the filing of the lawsuit and does not mention any decision, judgment, or order issued in the case.

What this means for you

The filing of the lawsuit does not constitute a determination that the publications were unlawful or that the defendants are responsible for them; the allegations still require adjudication by the court. The proceeding may illustrate that campaign sponsors, consultants, advertising companies, transportation operators, and officeholders may also be sued over their alleged role in harmful publications, but liability in each case depends on the evidence and a judicial ruling.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings