A business can sue fake reviewers for negative online reviews, an Ohio appeals court ruled.
More than 60 fake reviews posted from Ohio on a Texas law firm’s online business page may be defamatory because they are more than opinions and can be proven true or false, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled. The Fifth District found that the reviews on the Google business page for Amaro Law Firm contain statements describing fictitious client relationships, in which the supposed clients criticized the firm for a lack of communication or follow-up. Because all of those statements can easily be checked, the firm can continue its defamation lawsuit against two Licking County residents, the recent opinion concluded.
Nearly 100 fake reviews were posted in 2022 on the Houston law firm’s Google business page. The reviews were associated with separate Google accounts listing different names. Amaro’s 2023 lawsuit in Licking County Common Pleas Court alleged the reviewer names were never potential or actual clients of the law firm.
The IP address used to post the reviews was traced back to the residence of Patrick and Ronald DeMichael in Licking County. Before the reviews were posted, the law firm had the highest rating of five stars and more than 1,500 positive reviews. Businesses with higher rankings appear more prominently in search and map results on Google.
The Fifth District ruled that remaining fake reviews from the DeMichael IP address – including ones that had stars only – are protected opinions and cannot be defamatory.
The trial court had dismissed the Amaro lawsuit in December 2023, finding all of the reviews were opinions protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court’s decision overturns this judgment, and the case returns to trial court for additional proceedings.
Ninety-Nine Reviews Posted in Five Months From One Address
The Amaro firm specializes in personal injury cases. The firm’s complaint asserted that its listing on Google My Business was flooded with 99 fake reviews with three stars during a five-month period from February to June 2022. The lawsuit alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, trade libel, and tortious interference with business relations.
The firm argued that the reviews were false because names connected to email accounts weren’t potential or actual clients. The reviews were designed to spread a false impression of widespread client dissatisfaction with services offered by Amaro Law Firm and injured its reputation, according to their claims. It stated that these fake reviews caused a noticeable decline in inquiries and new clients generated through their Google page.
In August 2023, the DeMichaels asked trial court to dismiss this case. They argued that these reviews were constitutionally protected opinions. Since Amaro’s other claims relied on defamation allegations, those claims must also be dismissed, they maintained.
Trial court found that a reasonable reader wouldn’t believe these statements were factual but would instead consider them as opinions protected under First Amendment rights; thus it dismissed other claims too.
Amaro appealed to Fifth District Appeals Court
Appeals Court Evaluates Whether Reviews Were Factual or Opinion Statements
Fifth District opinion written by Judge W Scott Gwin grouped these ninety-nine review cases into categories: deciding whether possibly defamatory language is fact-based or opinionated required reviewing circumstances including four factors: specific language used; whether statement verifiable; general context within which it appeared; broader contextual appearance.
Out Of Ninety-Nine Reviews Fifty-Seven contained statements such as “no follow-up,” “never called me back,” “no communication.” Some also contained terms like "case," "experience," "outcome," specifically referencing reviewer’s case experiences while Five others used subjective language such as "poor communication" but made specific references indicating they were clients/potential clients including comments like "dealing personal injury case", "called about accident", etc.
Fifth District noted sixty-two categorized “no communication/client language” left readers impression reviewers' clients weren’t responsive verifiable whether reviewer had case returned calls updated client completed work explained
“When review contains specific statements capable being proved true/false explanation negative online review/rating grounds defamation claim” stated
Court described general context ninety-nine posted online forum short timeframe presented separate individuals readers believed reviewers actual experiences noted broader context Google My Business page terms service contributions based real experiences information content should reflect genuine experience location shouldn’t manipulate place ratings policy adds don’t post fake content multiple times same place accounts.
Four factors analyzing indicate sixty-two not protected opinions may defamatory ruled determined thirty-seven opinions
Case returns trial court incorrectly found all ninety-nine opinions relevant considering large volume connected systematic construction pattern conduct.
Judges Craig Baldwin William Hoffman joined Judge Gwin opinion
Amaro v DeMichael 2024-Ohio-3290
Please note: Opinion summaries prepared Office Public Information general public news media not official headnotes syllabi full text available online