As with other forms of defamation or libel, the important distinction among online reviews of restaurants, businesses, and other experiences is between subjective statements of opinion (“the food was terrible”) and objective statements of fact (“the restaurant is a front for organized crime”). A person is entitled to state an opinion that is different from other persons’ opinions, but is not entitled to misrepresent facts that can be proven to be true or false.

Laws vary from state to state, but many state legislatures have enacted laws that protect citizens against lawsuits designed to intimidate and silence critics speaking on matters of public interest. For more information on these laws, see the subtopic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

In California, the distinction between opinion and fact in online reviews is crucial when it comes to defamation or libel claims. Subjective opinions, such as 'the food was terrible,' are typically protected under the First Amendment and are not considered defamatory. However, false statements of fact, like claiming 'the restaurant is a front for organized crime' when it is not, could lead to a defamation lawsuit if they harm the reputation of the business or individual. California has strong protections for free speech, including anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws. These laws are designed to prevent lawsuits that aim to silence individuals on matters of public concern. Under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), defendants in a lawsuit that arises from their speech on a public issue can file a motion to strike the complaint. If the motion is successful, the lawsuit is dismissed at an early stage, and the defendant may be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs.