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 Kansas, as in other states, the legal distinction between subjective opinions and objective statements of fact is crucial when it comes to online reviews of restaurants, businesses, and other experiences. Subjective opinions, such as 'the food was terrible,' are generally protected under the First Amendment and are not considered defamatory because they are personal views that cannot be objectively proven true or false. However, objective statements of fact, such as 'the restaurant is a front for organized crime,' if false, could be considered defamatory as they allege specific illegal conduct and can be proven true or false. Kansas has laws in place that address defamation and libel, and these laws would apply to online reviews as well. Additionally, Kansas may have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation designed to prevent the misuse of legal systems to intimidate or silence individuals speaking out on matters of public interest. Such laws aim to protect the right to free speech, especially when the speech pertains to public concerns.