A False Negative Review Is Defaming Your Business
If a false and damaging review has been posted about your business online, you may have a claim under the Defamation Act 2013. There are steps you can take to have the review removed by the platform, identify the reviewer, and bring legal proceedings if necessary.
Quick Answer
A false review that causes serious reputational harm to your business may be defamatory under the Defamation Act 2013. The serious harm test must be met. The limitation period is one year from publication. You can request platform takedown, seek a Norwich Pharmacal Order to identify the poster, send a letter of claim, and issue court proceedings.
Full Explanation
The Defamation Act 2013 governs defamation law in England and Wales. Under s.1, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. For a business (a body trading for profit), serious harm requires that the publication has caused or is likely to cause the business serious financial loss (s.1(2)). This is a higher threshold than under the previous common law.
A false negative review posted on a platform such as Google, Trustpilot, or TripAdvisor that is false in its factual content (not merely an expression of opinion) and that causes or is likely to cause serious financial harm to the business may constitute defamation. Pure expressions of opinion โ 'I thought the food was terrible' โ are protected by the defence of honest opinion under s.3 Defamation Act 2013, provided the opinion is based on facts stated or generally known at the time.
The first practical step is to request removal directly from the platform. Most review platforms have reporting mechanisms for reviews that violate their terms of service (which typically prohibit false reviews, fabricated experiences, and harassment). A formal legal notice citing the Defamation Act 2013 alongside a platform report is often effective.
If the reviewer is anonymous, you may need to identify them before taking legal action. A Norwich Pharmacal Order is an order requiring a third party (such as the platform or an internet service provider) who has been innocently mixed up in the wrongdoing to disclose information that enables the wrongdoer to be identified. The threshold for such an order is that there is a good arguable case of wrongdoing, and the order is necessary.
Once the reviewer is identified, the usual pre-action steps apply: a letter of claim citing the Defamation Act 2013 and demanding a withdrawal, apology, and undertaking not to repeat the statement. If the matter is not resolved, court proceedings can be issued. Note the one-year limitation period under Limitation Act 1980 s.4A โ time runs from each individual publication (including each time a new person accesses the review under the single publication rule in Defamation Act 2013 s.8).
Legal Basis
- ยงDefamation Act 2013 s.1 โ serious harm test
- ยงDefamation Act 2013 s.3 โ honest opinion defence
- ยงDefamation Act 2013 s.5 โ operators of websites hosting user-generated content
- ยงDefamation Act 2013 s.8 โ single publication rule
- ยงLimitation Act 1980 s.4A โ one-year limitation period for defamation
- ยงNorwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133 โ court order to identify wrongdoer
What To Do
Preserve the Review With Screenshots and Metadata
Immediately take timestamped screenshots of the review and its URL, along with any engagement data (views, likes). Use a screen capture tool that records metadata. This evidence is essential for any legal action โ reviews are sometimes deleted by the poster or platform before proceedings can be commenced.
Request Takedown From the Platform Citing the Defamation Act 2013
Use the platform's reporting mechanism and supplement it with a formal legal notice addressed to the platform's legal team. Cite the Defamation Act 2013, explain why the review is false and defamatory, and state that the serious harm test is met. Platforms that host user-generated content have a defence under s.5 Defamation Act 2013, but only if they respond properly to take-down requests.
Apply for a Norwich Pharmacal Order If the Reviewer Is Anonymous
If the reviewer's identity is unknown, instruct a solicitor to apply to the court for a Norwich Pharmacal Order requiring the platform or its hosting provider to disclose the reviewer's identity (email address, IP address, account details). The application requires evidence of a good arguable case of defamation and that the information is necessary for bringing a claim.
Send a Letter of Claim to the Reviewer
Once the reviewer is identified, your solicitor sends a pre-action letter of claim following the Defamation Pre-action Protocol. The letter should identify the specific defamatory words, explain why they are false and defamatory, state the harm caused, and demand a withdrawal, public apology, and undertaking not to repeat.
Issue Court Proceedings If the Matter Is Not Resolved
If the reviewer does not respond to the letter of claim or refuses to remove the review, issue defamation proceedings in the Media and Communications List of the King's Bench Division (for substantial claims) or the County Court (for lower-value claims). Ensure proceedings are issued within one year of publication.
Important Deadlines
Important Warnings
Defamation litigation is expensive and risky โ costs can easily exceed the value of any damages award. Consider carefully whether litigation is proportionate to the harm caused. Many cases settle after a letter of claim.
The serious harm test under Defamation Act 2013 s.1(2) requires serious financial loss for businesses โ evidence of lost customers, cancelled contracts, or quantifiable revenue decline will be necessary.
Do not engage with the reviewer publicly or aggressively online โ this may be used against you and could give rise to counterclaims. All responses should be measured and directed through your solicitor.