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 Rhode Island, as in other states, defamation law distinguishes between subjective opinions and objective statements of fact. 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 proven true or false. However, objective statements of fact, such as 'the restaurant is a front for organized crime,' if false and damaging to someone's reputation, can be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Rhode Island has also enacted anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) legislation, which is designed to protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits that are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense. This law allows a defendant to file a special motion to dismiss a lawsuit if it is deemed to be targeting their free speech rights on a matter of public concern. If the motion is successful, the lawsuit can be dismissed early in the legal process, and the defendant may be entitled to recover attorney fees and court costs.