📋 Overview

You posted an online review or made statements about a business, and now you have received a threatening letter demanding you remove it. Before you panic, know this: federal and state laws provide strong protections for consumers who share honest opinions about businesses. Many of these threats are SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) designed to silence criticism through intimidation.

CRFA Federal Protection

The Consumer Review Fairness Act makes contract clauses prohibiting honest reviews void and unenforceable. FTC enforces with $50K+ fines.

Anti-SLAPP Laws

32+ states have anti-SLAPP statutes. Win an anti-SLAPP motion and the business pays YOUR attorney fees.

Truth is Absolute Defense

True statements cannot be defamation. If you can prove what you wrote is true, you have a complete defense.

Opinion is Protected

Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false are constitutionally protected speech.

Why Most Threats Go Nowhere

Businesses know that suing reviewers often backfires. The "Streisand Effect" generates more negative publicity than the original review. Anti-SLAPP laws mean they risk paying YOUR legal fees. Yelp places "Consumer Alerts" on businesses that sue reviewers. Most threats are bluffs - designed to intimidate, not to actually litigate.

Elements of a Defamation Claim

To win a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove ALL of the following:

Element What They Must Prove Your Defense
False Statement of Fact The statement is provably false (opinions do not count) Truth defense; opinion defense
Publication Statement was communicated to third parties Usually undisputed for online reviews
About the Plaintiff The statement is "of and concerning" them General industry criticism may not qualify
Fault Negligence (private figure) or actual malice (public figure) Good faith belief in truth
Damages Actual harm to reputation or business Must prove specific damages, not just hurt feelings

📜 Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA)

The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 (15 U.S.C. 45b) is a federal law that protects your right to share honest reviews.

What CRFA Prohibits

The CRFA makes it illegal for businesses to use form contracts that:

  • Restrict your ability to communicate honest reviews about goods, services, or conduct
  • Impose penalties or fees for posting reviews
  • Require you to give up IP rights in your review content
Any such contract provision is "void from the inception" - meaning it was never valid and cannot be enforced. 15 U.S.C. 45b(b)(1)

FTC Enforcement

The Federal Trade Commission enforces CRFA with significant penalties:

  • Civil penalties up to $50,000+ per violation
  • First-time violations can exceed $50,000
  • Pattern of violations can result in injunctions and ongoing monitoring

The FTC has brought enforcement actions against businesses using non-disparagement clauses, including a notable case against Roka Akor restaurant chain and Fashion Nova.

What CRFA Does NOT Protect

  • Reviews that are not "honest" - false statements are not protected
  • Disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information
  • Content that is defamatory, harassing, or unrelated to the goods/services
  • Breach of NDA provisions protecting genuinely confidential business information

CRFA protects your right to give honest feedback - not to make things up or disclose confidential information.

If a Business Cites a Contract Clause

When a business threatens you based on a "non-disparagement clause" or similar contract term:

The Clause is Void

Under CRFA, any clause prohibiting honest reviews is void from inception. It never had legal effect.

Report to FTC

File a complaint at ftc.gov/complaint. The FTC investigates businesses using illegal contract terms.

Counter-Attack

Their use of void contract clauses may expose them to FTC enforcement and state consumer protection claims.

⚖ Anti-SLAPP Laws

Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws allow defendants to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits aimed at silencing speech. The key benefit: if you win, the plaintiff must pay your attorney fees.

California Anti-SLAPP (CCP 425.16)

California has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country. Under CCP 425.16:

  • Early motion: Must be filed within 60 days of service
  • Discovery stay: All discovery is stayed pending the motion
  • Two-prong test: (1) Speech arises from protected activity; (2) Plaintiff cannot show probability of prevailing
  • Mandatory fees: Prevailing defendant gets attorney fees as a matter of right
"Consumer reviews about businesses are speech in connection with an issue of public interest" and fall within the scope of CCP 425.16.

Anti-SLAPP in Other States

Over 32 states have anti-SLAPP statutes. Here are some key states:

State Statute Fee Shifting Key Features
California CCP 425.16 Yes (mandatory) Broad scope, discovery stay, 60-day deadline
Texas TCPA Chapter 27 Yes (mandatory) Very strong, covers broad speech categories
New York CPLR 3211(g), 76-a Yes Strengthened in 2020, covers public interest speech
Florida FS 768.295 Yes Covers government proceedings, exercise of constitutional rights
Washington RCW 4.24.525 Yes Covers public participation, damages available to defendant
Oregon ORS 31.150-31.155 Yes Covers speech on matters of public concern
Nevada NRS 41.635-41.670 Yes Covers good faith communication on issues of public concern

Risk to the Business

When a business sues over a review in an anti-SLAPP state, they face significant risk:

  • Attorney fees: Recent awards range from $25,000 to $150,000+
  • Quick dismissal: Case can be dismissed within 60-90 days
  • Negative publicity: "Business sues customer for honest review" makes headlines
  • Yelp Consumer Alert: Yelp posts warnings on businesses that sue reviewers

💬 Opinion vs. Fact: The "Provably False" Test

The constitutional distinction between opinion and fact is critical. Only statements of fact that are provably false can be defamatory. Pure opinion is protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Milkovich Test

The Supreme Court established that the key question is whether a statement is "provably false." If a statement cannot be proven true or false by objective evidence, it is protected opinion.

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) - A statement must contain a "provably false factual connotation" to be actionable as defamation.

Fact vs. Opinion Examples

Statement Type Example Protection
Pure Opinion (Value Judgment) "This restaurant is terrible"
"The service was awful"		 PROTECTED
Opinion Based on Disclosed Facts "I waited 45 minutes for my order; in my opinion this is unacceptable service" PROTECTED
Rhetorical Hyperbole "The worst mechanic in the world"
"Total rip-off"		 PROTECTED
Verifiable Statement of Fact "They charged me $500 for a service listed at $200" FACT - must be true
Accusation of Crime "They committed fraud"
"They stole from me"		 RISKY - could be defamatory if untrue
False Statement of Fact "They have health code violations" (when they do not) NOT PROTECTED

Context Matters

Courts consider the context in which a statement appears. Review platforms like Yelp and Google are understood to contain subjective opinions. Readers expect reviews to reflect personal experiences and viewpoints, which weighs toward finding statements are opinion. The Ninth Circuit has noted that "the challenged statements were made in the context of online user reviews, a forum where readers expect to see complaints about businesses."

Strategies for Framing Reviews

Use "In My Opinion" / "I Felt"

Explicitly framing statements as opinion provides additional protection, though courts look at substance over form.

Describe Your Experience

"My food came cold" is a factual statement about YOUR experience, not an assertion about the business's general practices.

Avoid Accusations of Crime

Instead of "They committed fraud," say "I felt deceived" or "The pricing was not what I was told."

Be Accurate on Facts

If you cite specific facts (dates, prices, names), make sure they are accurate. Incorrect specifics can undermine fair use claims.

🖥 Section 230 Platform Immunity

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)) provides immunity to websites for content posted by users. This affects how businesses can (and cannot) attack your reviews.

What Section 230 Does

"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." 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)

This means:

  • Yelp, Google, TripAdvisor, etc. cannot be sued for hosting your review
  • Platforms have no legal obligation to remove reviews based on business complaints
  • The business must sue YOU directly - they cannot force removal through the platform

What This Means for You

Because platforms are immune, businesses face significant hurdles:

  • They cannot simply send a legal threat to Yelp/Google and force removal
  • They must identify you (which may require a subpoena if you are anonymous)
  • They must file a lawsuit against you specifically
  • Even with a court order, platforms have discretion in how they comply

Platform Support

Major review platforms actively support reviewers facing legal threats:

  • Yelp: Has filed anti-SLAPP motions on behalf of users, posts "Consumer Alerts" on businesses that sue reviewers
  • Google: Generally declines removal requests without court orders
  • TripAdvisor: Has policies protecting legitimate reviews from removal

📝 Retraction Statutes

Many states have retraction statutes that limit damages in defamation cases if the defendant promptly corrects or retracts the statement. Understanding these laws helps you evaluate your options.

California Retraction Statute (Civ. Code 48a)

Under California Civil Code Section 48a:

  • Plaintiff must request a retraction before suing
  • If retraction is published within 3 weeks of request, plaintiff can only recover special (actual) damages, not general or punitive damages
  • Without a retraction request, the plaintiff may be barred from certain damages
This statute applies to newspapers, radio, and TV - its application to online reviews is unsettled, but a voluntary correction may still help limit exposure.

Retraction Statute Overview by State

State Key Provision Timing
California Limits damages if retraction published after request 3 weeks after request
Texas Retraction can eliminate exemplary damages Reasonable time after request
Florida Published correction mitigates damages 10 days after request
New York Retraction is evidence of good faith, mitigates damages No specific deadline
Illinois Good faith retraction bars punitive damages Within 10 days of request

Strategic Consideration

A retraction is NOT an admission of liability. You can correct specific factual errors while maintaining that your opinion is protected. Consider: "Upon further review, the specific date was [X] not [Y] as I originally stated. My overall assessment of my experience remains unchanged."

✅ How to Comply Without Capitulating

Sometimes the strategic choice is to modify your review - but you can do so in ways that maintain your core message while reducing legal risk.

Response Options

Stand Your Ground

If your review is truthful and well-documented, respond asserting your rights. Most threats evaporate when the sender realizes you know the law.

  • Cite CRFA, anti-SLAPP
  • Warn of fee-shifting consequences
  • Preserves your voice entirely

Edit for Accuracy

Correct any minor factual errors while keeping your overall assessment. This is NOT capitulation - it is maintaining credibility.

  • Fix dates, names, specific numbers
  • Keep opinion statements intact
  • Shows good faith

Reframe Language

Change assertions that could be read as facts into clearly opinion-based statements without changing your message.

  • "They committed fraud" to "I felt deceived"
  • "They lied" to "The information I received was inaccurate"
  • Add "in my opinion" or "in my experience"

Add Citations/Evidence

Strengthen your review by adding documentation. Reviews based on disclosed facts are more clearly protected.

  • Reference receipts, photos
  • "As shown in my email dated..."
  • Link to other public complaints

Preservation Checklist

📷 Document Everything

  • ✓ Screenshot your original review with timestamp
  • ✓ Save the demand letter (scan/photograph)
  • ✓ Preserve receipts, contracts, communications
  • ✓ Document any photos or evidence of your experience

🔍 Research the Business

  • ✓ Search for other reviews with similar complaints
  • ✓ Check if business has history of threatening reviewers
  • ✓ Look for BBB complaints, regulatory actions
  • ✓ Note any pattern of similar behavior

The Streisand Effect

Named after Barbara Streisand's failed attempt to suppress photos of her home (which only drew more attention), the Streisand Effect describes how attempts to censor often backfire. Businesses that sue reviewers frequently generate far more negative publicity than the original review. News coverage of "business sues customer" stories reaches far more people than any Yelp review ever would.

📄 Response Templates

Customize these templates based on your situation. For significant threats, consider having an attorney send the response on letterhead.

Firm Defense - Citing Anti-SLAPP and CRFA
RE: Your demand letter dated [DATE] regarding my review of [BUSINESS NAME] I have received your letter demanding removal of my review. I decline. My review is a truthful account of my experience as a customer of [BUSINESS NAME]. Consumer reviews are protected speech under both the First Amendment and California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). Additionally, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (15 U.S.C. 45b) makes it unlawful for businesses to threaten or penalize consumers for posting honest reviews. Any contract clause purporting to prohibit reviews is void and unenforceable under federal law. If [BUSINESS NAME] files a lawsuit over my protected speech, I will immediately file an anti-SLAPP motion under CCP 425.16. Under section 425.16(c), a prevailing defendant is entitled to mandatory recovery of attorney fees. Recent anti-SLAPP fee awards in defamation cases have ranged from $25,000 to over $150,000. I encourage [BUSINESS NAME] to respond to negative feedback constructively rather than threatening customers who share their genuine experiences. This will be my only response. I reserve all rights and remedies. Sincerely, [YOUR NAME]
Response to Non-Disparagement Clause Threat
RE: Your demand letter dated [DATE] Your letter references a clause in [BUSINESS NAME]'s customer agreement that allegedly prohibits negative reviews. This clause is void and unenforceable under federal law. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 (15 U.S.C. 45b) expressly prohibits businesses from using form contracts to restrict customers' ability to review their products or services. Any such provision is "void from the inception of such contract." 15 U.S.C. 45b(b)(1). The FTC has enforcement authority over CRFA violations with civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. I am considering reporting [BUSINESS NAME]'s use of illegal contract terms to the FTC. My review reflects my honest experience and is fully protected by the First Amendment, CRFA, and state anti-SLAPP laws. I decline your demand to remove or modify it. If you proceed with legal action, I will assert all available defenses including an anti-SLAPP motion under CCP 425.16, which provides for mandatory fee recovery. I strongly recommend that [BUSINESS NAME] consult with legal counsel about the risks of proceeding. Sincerely, [YOUR NAME]
Opinion Defense Response
RE: Your demand letter dated [DATE] I have reviewed your letter alleging that my review of [BUSINESS NAME] is defamatory. The statements in my review are constitutionally protected opinion and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim. As established in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), only statements containing a "provably false factual connotation" can be actionable. My statements that [SPECIFIC STATEMENTS - e.g., "the service was terrible," "I would not recommend this business," "this was a disappointing experience"] are classic expressions of opinion and subjective evaluation. Courts consistently hold that online reviews on platforms like Yelp and Google are understood by readers to contain subjective opinions reflecting personal experiences. See [relevant case if available]. The context of consumer review platforms weighs heavily toward finding statements to be protected opinion. Even if any statement could be construed as factual, truth is an absolute defense to defamation. My review accurately describes my experience as a customer. I decline your demand. If you file suit, I will assert all available defenses including California's anti-SLAPP statute, which provides for mandatory attorney fee recovery. Sincerely, [YOUR NAME]
Brief No-Nonsense Response
RE: Your letter dated [DATE] My review is truthful and protected by the First Amendment, California's anti-SLAPP law (CCP 425.16), and the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act. I will not remove or modify my review. If your client files suit, I will file an anti-SLAPP motion and seek full recovery of my attorney fees under CCP 425.16(c). I suggest you advise your client of the significant risks and costs of proceeding. This will be my only response. [YOUR NAME]
FTC Complaint Language (for reporting CRFA violations)
I am filing this complaint regarding a violation of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (15 U.S.C. 45b) by [BUSINESS NAME]. On [DATE], I posted an honest review of [BUSINESS NAME] on [PLATFORM]. On [DATE], I received a demand letter from [BUSINESS NAME / THEIR ATTORNEY] threatening legal action unless I remove my review. [If applicable:] The demand letter cites a "non-disparagement clause" in [BUSINESS NAME]'s customer agreement that prohibits negative reviews. Under the CRFA, such clauses are void and unenforceable, and businesses may not threaten consumers based on them. I am attaching: 1. Copy of my original review 2. Copy of the demand letter received 3. [If applicable] Copy of the contract containing the non-disparagement clause I request that the FTC investigate [BUSINESS NAME] for violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act, including: - Use of void non-disparagement contract provisions - Threatening consumers for posting honest reviews [YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION]

Need Professional Help?

An attorney-drafted response puts businesses on notice that you understand your rights and they face significant risk if they proceed.

Schedule Consultation

Legal Resources

  • Consumer Review Fairness Act: 15 U.S.C. 45b
  • California Anti-SLAPP: CCP 425.16
  • Section 230: 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)
  • California Retraction Statute: Civil Code 48a
  • Report CRFA Violations: ftc.gov/complaint
  • Public Participation Project: anti-slapp.org - National anti-SLAPP resources
  • EFF: eff.org - Digital rights organization tracking free speech cases
  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: State-by-state anti-SLAPP guide