Defamation and False Online Reviews Affecting Virginia Businesses

The information in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change and individual circumstances vary. Consult a licensed Virginia attorney about your specific situation. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship nor does merely contacting our office through this website or any other means.

---

Online reviews have a direct effect on business. For a small business in Christiansburg, Blacksburg, or elsewhere in the New River Valley, a cluster of false negative reviews on Google, Yelp, or other platforms can cost real customers. When those reviews contain false statements of fact, Virginia law provides potential remedies, though the path to justice is not simple.

This article explains how Virginia defamation law applies to online reviews, what platforms are and are not required to do, how to identify reviewers who post anonymously, and how Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute affects the analysis.

Virginia Defamation Law: The Basic Framework

Defamation is a false statement of fact communicated to a third party that damages the plaintiff’s reputation. In Virginia, defamation claims are governed by a combination of common law and statutes.

To establish a defamation claim in Virginia, a plaintiff must generally prove:

1. A false statement of fact (not an opinion)
2. Publication of that statement to a third party
3. The appropriate degree of fault (negligence for private figures; actual malice for public figures)
4. Damage to reputation

Virginia also recognizes defamation per se, meaning certain categories of statements are presumed to be harmful without requiring the plaintiff to prove specific damages. These include statements that falsely charge a person with the commission of a crime, impute a loathsome disease, or cause injury to someone in their profession, trade, or business.

The Insulting Words Statute

Virginia’s insulting words statute, Va. Code § 8.01-45, creates an additional cause of action for words that, by their usual construction and common acceptance, are construed as insults and tend to violence and breach of the peace. This statute has a narrower application than general defamation and typically requires words that are particularly inflammatory.

For most online review disputes, the standard defamation framework is the more relevant vehicle.

The Critical Distinction: Opinion vs. Fact

The most important threshold question in any defamation claim is whether the statement is an opinion or a statement of fact. Only statements of fact can be defamatory; pure opinions are protected by the First Amendment.

Courts evaluate this question by considering:

• Whether the statement uses language that is objectively verifiable as true or false
• The context in which the statement was made
• Whether the full context signals that the statement is rhetorical hyperbole rather than a factual assertion

A review saying “the worst restaurant I’ve ever been to” is clearly an opinion. A review saying “the chef failed his food handler’s certification last year” is a factual claim that could be verified as true or false and could support a defamation claim if false.

Many online review disputes fall in a gray area. “Scam artist” might be opinion in some contexts and a factual assertion about specific conduct in others, depending on what the rest of the review says. A Virginia attorney can help assess whether a particular review is likely to be treated as fact or opinion under Virginia law.

False Reviews by Competitors or Disgruntled Former Employees

Some of the most damaging false reviews come not from actual unhappy customers but from competitors seeking to harm a business or from former employees acting out of grievance. These situations may support additional claims beyond defamation:

• A false review by a competitor may support a tortious interference claim if it causes specific customer losses
• A competitor’s coordinated campaign of false reviews may constitute unfair trade practices
• A former employee’s false review may support both defamation and, depending on what is said, other tort claims

Identifying the source of anonymous negative reviews is discussed below.

Section 230 and Platform Immunity

A central limitation in online defamation cases is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), which provides broad immunity to online platforms, including Google, Yelp, and similar services, for content posted by third parties.

Under Section 230, platforms are generally treated as distributors rather than publishers of third-party content. This means that Google is not liable for a defamatory review posted by a user, even if Google is aware of the review and declines to remove it. The claim must be directed at the person who posted the review, not the platform.

This immunity has important practical implications:

• Courts generally cannot order Google or Yelp to remove a review based solely on its content being defamatory, at least not through a defamation judgment against the platform.
• The only viable legal claim is against the person who wrote the review.
• Platform content policies, not court orders against the platform itself, govern voluntary removal.

Options for Removing False Reviews

Because legal compulsion against platforms is limited, businesses dealing with false reviews typically pursue a combination of approaches:

Platform Reporting

Every major review platform has a reporting mechanism for content that violates its policies. False reviews that misrepresent the reviewer’s identity (the reviewer was never actually a customer), constitute spam, or violate other platform policies may be removed through internal processes.

This process can be slow, inconsistent, and frustrating, but it is often the first and most cost-effective step.

Subpoena for Anonymous Reviewer Identity

When a review was posted anonymously or pseudonymously and a defamation claim has merit, a plaintiff can file a lawsuit and use the court’s subpoena power to compel the platform to disclose the identity of the reviewer.

This process typically involves:

1. Filing a defamation lawsuit (sometimes against “John Doe” initially)
2. Seeking a subpoena or court order requiring the platform to provide account information associated with the review
3. Identifying the reviewer and amending the complaint

Courts in Virginia have handled these John Doe subpoena requests. The standard for compelling disclosure is not uniform, but courts generally require the plaintiff to show that the underlying claim is legally viable before ordering disclosure. This protects anonymous speech while allowing legitimate defamation claims to proceed.

Virginia’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

Virginia enacted an anti-SLAPP law, Va. Code § 8.01-223.2, which is designed to protect against lawsuits that are intended to silence constitutionally protected expression on matters of public concern rather than to vindicate genuine legal claims. “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Under § 8.01-223.2, a defendant in a civil action arising from an act relating to matters of public interest, including statements in public forums, may file a special motion to dismiss. If the court grants the motion, the defendant is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs.

For online review cases, this statute can cut in both directions:

• A business pursuing a defamation claim over a false review must be confident that its claim is based on genuinely false statements of fact, not opinions or substantially true statements. An overreaching defamation claim over a negative review could trigger an anti-SLAPP motion and result in an attorney fee award against the business.
• Conversely, the anti-SLAPP statute does not protect genuinely defamatory statements simply because they appear online or concern a matter of public interest. False statements of fact are not protected expression.

The anti-SLAPP statute creates a meaningful risk for businesses that pursue defamation claims that cannot clearly distinguish false facts from protected opinion. Virginia attorneys advising on these matters evaluate this risk carefully.

Damages Available

In a successful defamation claim, Virginia plaintiffs may be entitled to:

• General (presumed) damages in cases of defamation per se, where specific harm need not be proven
• Special (actual) damages for specific economic losses, including provable lost business and lost profits attributable to the false statements
• Punitive damages where the defendant acted with actual malice (knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity)

Quantifying defamation damages is often difficult. Lost business may be hard to trace directly to a specific review. Virginia courts apply a standard of reasonable certainty for actual damages, and claims for speculative lost profits are disfavored.

Practical Steps for Virginia Businesses

If you believe your New River Valley business has been harmed by a false online review, consider the following initial steps:

• Capture and preserve the review: Screenshot with the date, URL, and any identifying information about the reviewer, before it is edited or removed.
• Identify any relationship with the reviewer: Was this person ever actually a customer? Is there any history with them that might be relevant?
• Report to the platform using its formal reporting mechanism, documenting that you did so.
• Consult a Virginia attorney if the review appears to contain false statements of fact, the damage to your business is substantial, or you suspect the review is part of a coordinated campaign.

Not every negative review supports a viable legal claim, but genuine false factual statements that damage a business’s reputation may justify action.

---

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Do not rely on this article to make decisions about your specific situation. Contact Valley Legal or another licensed Virginia attorney to discuss your case. Attorney advertising.

Valley Legal, PLLC is located at 107 Pepper St SE, Christiansburg, Virginia 24073, and serves clients throughout the New River Valley of Virginia, including Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Radford, Pulaski, and surrounding communities.