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 South Carolina, 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 actionable as defamation. However, objective statements that can be proven true or false, such as 'the restaurant is a front for organized crime,' could potentially be defamatory if they are false and harm the reputation of the business or individual. South Carolina does not have a specific anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute that many other states have enacted to protect individuals from lawsuits that are intended to silence or intimidate them from speaking out on matters of public interest. Without such a statute, defendants in South Carolina may not have the same procedural advantages that anti-SLAPP laws provide, such as early dismissal of cases or recovery of attorney's fees. Nonetheless, defendants can still argue traditional defenses to defamation, such as truth, opinion, and lack of malice.