Defamation vs. Opinion: When Does a Bad Review Cross the Line?

By the Expert Reputation team · Updated September 30, 2026

Most negative reviews, even angry or unfair ones, are not defamation. Under general US principles, a review crosses the line only when it states a false fact (not an opinion) that harms your reputation. This page explains that distinction, the federal laws that shape your options, and when it's worth calling an attorney. It is general information, not legal advice. Defamation law varies by state, so talk to a licensed attorney about any specific review.

What counts as defamation

Defamation law comes mostly from the states, so details differ. As Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute summarizes it, a defamation claim generally requires:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact
2. Publication of that statement to someone other than you (a public review qualifies)
3. The required level of fault by the person who made it
4. Harm to reputation or other legally recognized damage

Two general points matter most for reviews. First, truth is generally a complete defense. If the customer really was charged twice, saying so isn't defamatory. Second, public officials and public figures face a higher bar: they must prove "actual malice." Whether a particular business counts as a public figure depends on the facts and the court.

Opinion vs. fact: where reviews usually land

The key question is whether the statement can be proven true or false. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), the US Supreme Court asked whether a statement was "sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false." It also held that adding "in my opinion" doesn't protect a statement that implies a false fact. "In my opinion John Jones is a liar" can do as much damage as "Jones is a liar."

Accusations of crimes or of professional incompetence are the kinds of statements courts have traditionally treated most seriously. Even then, the reviewer may be telling the truth, and you would need to show the statement is false.

Why you usually can't sue the review site: Section 230

Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In practice, a review site generally isn't legally responsible for what its users write. Section 230 also protects platforms' good-faith decisions to remove objectionable content.

What that means for you:

• A defamation claim usually targets the reviewer, not Google, Yelp, or Facebook.
• Platforms still enforce their own rules. Healthgrades' guidelines prohibit libelous or defamatory content, and Trustpilot lets businesses flag defamation as harmful content. Reporting under platform policy is often faster than a lawsuit. See what each site removes.
• Some platforms accept legal requests. Google takes legal removal requests for allegedly defamatory content, but notes it isn't "in a good position to evaluate whether claims about you are true or false" and "can't call witnesses or take sworn evidence." If it approves a request, it restricts the content in the country where it's considered defamatory.
• Anonymous reviewers may be hard to identify. Whether and how that can happen is a question for your attorney.

The Consumer Review Fairness Act: no gag clauses

The Consumer Review Fairness Act (15 U.S.C. § 45b) became law in 2016. It makes void any provision in a form contract (standard terms the customer can't negotiate) that:

• prohibits or restricts a customer's ability to review your products, services, or conduct;
• imposes a penalty or fee for posting a review; or
• takes the customer's intellectual property rights in their review, beyond a non-exclusive license to use it.

Offering such a contract is itself unlawful, and the FTC and state attorneys general enforce the law. The Act preserves your ability to remove content from your own site if it is, for example, defamatory, harassing, abusive, obscene, or contains someone's personal information. FTC guidance notes that disagreeing with a customer's opinion won't meet that standard. Review your intake forms, estimates, service agreements, and website terms, and remove any "no negative reviews" or non-disparagement language aimed at customers. Yelp's Questionable Legal Threats alert covers businesses that use contractual gag clauses.

Legal threats can be illegal too

The FTC's Consumer Review Rule (16 CFR Part 465, effective October 21, 2024) treats review suppression as an unfair or deceptive practice. Section 465.7 prohibits using "an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation" (made knowingly or with reckless disregard for its truth) to prevent a review or get one removed.

FTC staff guidance says you can threaten legal action when you have a legitimate basis, meaning claims warranted by existing law and facts with evidentiary support. A cease-and-desist letter for an opinion review is the kind of threat that creates risk. Yelp may also post a "Questionable Legal Threats" alert on your page when a business appears to use legal action to silence reviewers.

Anti-SLAPP laws: the risk of suing over a review

Many states have anti-SLAPP laws ("strategic lawsuit against public participation"). They generally let a defendant ask a court to dismiss, early in the case, a lawsuit that targets protected speech unless the plaintiff can show a likelihood of winning. How strong these laws are, what speech they cover, and whether fees shift differs a great deal from state to state.

California is a strong example. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, the California Supreme Court explained in Barry v. State Bar of California (2017) that unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing, the court must grant the motion "and ordinarily must also award the defendant its attorney's fees and costs." A business that sues a reviewer there and loses that motion may pay the reviewer's lawyers. Don't assume your state works the same way, or differently, without an attorney's advice.

Lawsuits against reviewers are also public. Filing one can draw far more attention to the review than it had before.

When to talk to an attorney

Consider a consultation with a lawyer licensed in your state, ideally one who handles defamation or internet law, when:

• A review states specific false facts, such as a crime, a fake diagnosis, or charges that never happened, and you have records showing they're false
• The review is causing measurable harm, such as lost contracts, canceled appointments, or a referral source pulling back
• You've reported the review and the platform declined, and the statement still looks factual rather than opinion
• The reviewer is a competitor or former employee (see competitor and employee reviews)
• Someone is threatening you or your staff, or demanding payment to take reviews down
• You're about to send a demand letter, or you've received one

Bring screenshots with dates and URLs, your records showing the statement is false, your platform reports and their outcomes, and any evidence of harm. Our post on legal and compliance considerations in review responses covers what to avoid saying in public replies while you decide.

What to do while you decide

• Don't retaliate in your reply. Stick to calm, factual language and invite the reviewer to contact you offline. Don't accuse the reviewer of lying unless you know it's false, and even then an attorney may advise against it.
• Healthcare providers: never confirm someone is a patient or discuss care in a reply, even to correct a false statement. Privacy rules apply no matter what the review says.
• Report under platform policy in parallel. It costs nothing and doesn't waive legal options.
• Preserve evidence now. Reviews get edited and deleted, and you may need the original wording later.