A customer posts, “The food was cold, the order arrived an hour late and staff refused to help.” The business dislikes the review, but the statements are accurate. Now imagine a different post: “This restaurant serves spoiled meat and steals customers’ card details,” written by someone who never visited it. Both reviews may damage a company’s reputation. They do not carry the same legal risk.
In the UK, a business can sue over an online review, particularly through a defamation claim. That possibility should not turn every disappointed customer into a nervous editor, though. The law does not give companies a free pass to silence criticism. A claimant must clear specific legal hurdles, and the truth of what you wrote matters enormously.
A bad review can become a defamation claim
In England and Wales, a company can bring a defamation action under the Defamation Act 2013. An online review is capable of being defamatory because it is published to other people and may harm the reputation of the business.
That does not mean a company wins simply because a review is unpleasant, damaging or commercially inconvenient. The business must show that the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to its reputation. For a profit-making company, serious harm means serious financial loss, or a serious likelihood of financial loss.
This is a much more demanding test than “someone left a one-star review”. A small local business may point to cancelled bookings, lost contracts or a sharp drop in enquiries. A large company may need to connect the review to substantial commercial damage. A court will examine the circumstances rather than treating the number of stars as a legal measurement.
The wording also matters. “I thought the service was chaotic and overpriced” is recognisably a customer’s assessment. “The owner falsifies safety records” is a specific allegation of fact. The second statement invites the reader to believe that something provable happened, so it requires a factual basis.
That distinction is not a magic shield. Calling something an “opinion” does not protect a statement that quietly presents an untrue allegation as fact. A reviewer cannot avoid responsibility by adding “in my opinion” to the front of a serious accusation.
Truth is the strongest answer to an angry solicitor’s letter
If the review is substantially true, truth is a legal defence to a defamation claim. The law does not require every minor detail to be expressed with laboratory precision. It does require the central sting of the allegation to be true.
Suppose a customer writes that a delivery arrived two hours late, even though it took one hour and fifty minutes. That exaggeration could still matter, especially if the timing is central to the complaint. But a small inaccuracy does not automatically transform an otherwise truthful account into defamation. The more serious and specific the allegation, the more carefully it should be checked.
Evidence is therefore more useful than confidence. Keep the booking confirmation, receipt, photographs, emails, delivery records and messages with customer service. If the review describes a conversation, write down what was said while it is fresh. Screenshots are helpful because online content can be edited or removed after a dispute begins.
A reviewer should also separate direct experience from rumour. “The bathroom was dirty when I visited on Saturday” describes something the writer says they personally saw. “People say this company launders money” passes on an accusation that may be impossible to prove. The first can be supported with evidence; the second can create a problem even if it sounds dramatic.
There is a practical lesson here that is easy to miss: precision often makes a review more credible and more useful. “The product is terrible” says little. “The kettle stopped heating after three weeks, and customer service did not respond to two messages” gives future customers something concrete to assess without adding unnecessary legal risk.
Opinion is allowed, but facts must carry their weight
Reviews naturally contain opinions. A customer may call a hotel room depressing, a meal bland or a repair service unprofessional. Those judgments are part of ordinary consumer speech. People are not expected to write like expert witnesses every time they rate a business.
Problems arise when an apparent opinion depends on an unstated or false fact. “I think this mechanic is dishonest” suggests a serious conclusion about conduct. If the only basis is that the repair took longer than expected, the statement may go further than the evidence supports. “I was quoted one price and charged another” is clearer because it identifies the event behind the criticism.
Tone can make a difference as well. Sarcasm, exaggeration and colourful language are common in reviews, and readers may understand them as rhetorical rather than literal. Still, a threat, personal abuse or allegation of criminal behaviour can push a post into much more dangerous territory. A review is not a safe place to settle a private argument with a business owner.
Companies sometimes contact reviewers asking for a correction or removal rather than issuing proceedings immediately. That does not prove the review is unlawful, and a demand letter is not a court judgment. It does mean the wording should be examined calmly. Check each factual assertion, correct anything wrong, and avoid deleting evidence before understanding what has happened.
If the dispute becomes serious, especially if the business threatens legal action, professional legal advice is sensible. Defamation cases can be expensive, and online arguments rarely improve when both sides keep posting in public. The screenshot you publish in frustration may become the most awkward exhibit in the dispute.
Fake reviews now create a separate legal problem
The legal landscape changed on 6 April 2025. In the UK, businesses and individuals are prohibited from publishing, commissioning or incentivising fake reviews under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
That reaches beyond a company inventing praise for itself. A business can also get into trouble for arranging false reviews, encouraging them or offering incentives for reviews that do not reflect genuine customer experiences. The concern is consumer deception: people use ratings and comments to decide where to spend money, and fabricated feedback distorts that decision.
The consequences can be severe. A company involved in deceptive review practices may face a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide turnover, as well as possible criminal consequences. The new rules therefore affect businesses that manage review campaigns, not just the customers who post on public platforms.
Consumers should not read this as a ban on negative reviews, paid-for feedback or all incentives. The critical question is whether the review is fake or misleading and whether the arrangement distorts what it claims to represent. A genuine customer describing a real purchase is in a very different position from somebody paid to pretend they used a service.
The Competition and Markets Authority opened an investigation on 26 March 2026 into five companies: Autotrader, Dignity, Feefo, Just Eat and Pasta Evangelists. The investigation shows that review systems themselves are now receiving close regulatory attention. Platforms and businesses may need to show that the feedback appearing under their names is genuine and handled honestly.
How to write a forceful review without making an avoidable mistake
Start with what happened, when it happened and what the business did in response. Quote an exact price or time only if you have checked it. Describe the product, service or interaction rather than making claims about a person’s character. “The refund promised on 4 May had not arrived by 20 May” is more defensible and more helpful than “This company steals from customers.”
Avoid repeating claims you cannot verify. Do not publish private information, and do not recruit friends to leave reviews about an experience they never had. If the business offers to resolve the complaint, record the agreement and update the review honestly if the outcome changes.
A company can sue, but the existence of that right is not a verdict against the reviewer. The real questions are whether the statement is defamatory, whether it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial harm, and whether the business can overcome a defence such as substantial truth. A careful account of a real experience stands on far firmer ground than an invented accusation dressed up as consumer advice.