Not Every Bad Review Is Defamation — Distinguishing Opinion From Fact
Genuinely negative customer experiences are protected opinion, and any review defamation matter has to start by separating that category of content from what's actually actionable. The reviews that matter in litigation are different: reviews from people who were never actual customers, reviews that assert false facts rather than subjective opinions, and reviews left by competitors, former employees, or coordinated groups working together. Investigating review defamation begins with determining whether a review reflects a real transaction at all, which is often a threshold factual question that shapes the entire rest of the case, and then documenting the specific false statements and their measurable business impact.
This distinction between opinion and fact is frequently the central battleground in review defamation litigation, and it's a distinction that requires more than a surface reading of the review's text. Reviewer account history, cross-platform activity, and business transaction records all factor into building or rebutting the claim that a review reflects a genuine, if negative, customer experience versus a fabricated attack.
How a Review Investigation Works for Litigation
Transaction Verification
Cross-referencing reviewer claims against actual customer, sales, or appointment records to determine whether a real transaction occurred, a threshold issue in most review defamation matters.
Reviewer Pattern Analysis
Reviewing the reviewer's account history and posting patterns for signs of a fake, duplicate, or competitor-linked account, documented for use in litigation.
Platform Reporting Strategy
Preparing and submitting platform-specific flagging and removal requests using each platform's own policies, coordinated with the litigation timeline.
Response & Cleanup
Where removal isn't possible, developing a client-facing response and search visibility strategy through Hartzer Consulting that doesn't prejudice the pending matter.