Can You Be Sued for Leaving a Negative Online Review in New Jersey?

The Short Answer

Yes — in New Jersey, a business can sue you for leaving a negative online review. But the state’s anti-SLAPP law, known as UPEPA, gives you a powerful tool to fight back: get the case dismissed quickly before expensive discovery begins, and force the business to pay your attorney’s fees. A June 2026 Appellate Division decision made those protections even clearer — and more concrete.

What Happened: A Law Firm Sued Over a BBB Review and Paid $24,000

On June 15, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided Lento Law Group, PC v. Hendrickson, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026), a published decision that is now binding precedent throughout New Jersey.

The facts are straightforward. Carly Hendrickson paid a law firm a $5,000 non-refundable retainer. Her legal matter settled quickly. She asked for a partial refund. The firm declined, citing the non-refundable fee clause in her retainer agreement. She posted a one-star BBB review calling the firm a “total rip off,” noting that other firms return unused retainer funds, and saying she wished she had known how the firm operated before hiring them.

The law firm sued her for defamation and tortious interference. She invoked UPEPA — New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute — and moved to dismiss. The trial court agreed: both claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the firm was ordered to pay her $24,198 in attorney fees and $199.83 in costs. The Appellate Division affirmed on every point.

“The firm that sued over a one-star review ended up paying its former client more than $24,000 in attorney’s fees.”

What Is New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP Law (UPEPA)?

“SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — litigation filed not to win on the merits, but to punish a speaker and drive up the cost of expressing an opinion. A business that cannot silence a negative review persuasively may try to do it through the threat of a lawsuit, even a losing one.

UPEPA — the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61 — was enacted in 2023 specifically to stop this. Here is how it works:

• The person who was sued files a motion to dismiss within 60 days of being served with the complaint.
• The court fast-tracks the motion before any expensive discovery takes place.
• If UPEPA applies and the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case on the face of the complaint, the case is dismissed with prejudice — permanently.
• The plaintiff who filed the lawsuit must pay the defendant’s reasonable attorney fees and costs.

That fee-shifting provision is UPEPA’s most important feature. It changes the economic calculation for any business considering a defamation lawsuit over a negative review: lose the UPEPA motion, and you pay the other side’s legal bills.

“UPEPA does not just dismiss meritless defamation suits — it makes the plaintiff pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees when it does.”

What the Court Decided — Three Key Holdings

1. A Defamation Claim Can Be Dismissed at the Pleading Stage, Before Discovery

Lento Law argued UPEPA required the court to apply the summary judgment standard — viewing all facts in the plaintiff’s favor before dismissing. The Appellate Division rejected this. UPEPA expressly permits dismissal under either the summary judgment standard or the simpler motion to dismiss standard, which asks only whether the complaint states a viable legal claim on its face. A defamation plaintiff cannot survive a UPEPA motion by making vague allegations and hoping to develop a case through discovery.

2. Opinion, Hyperbole, and Consumer Complaints Are Not Defamation

To win a defamation claim in New Jersey, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a false statement of fact — not opinion; (2) publication to a third party; and (3) fault. When the speech involves a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must also show actual malice — that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The court held that Hendrickson’s post was protected opinion throughout. “Total rip off” is rhetorical hyperbole. “You can get a lawyer for cheaper” is a subjective consumer judgment. “Had I known” is an unverifiable statement of personal belief. The complaint also failed to allege actual malice with the required specificity — signing a retainer agreement does not prove the reviewer knew her characterization of industry practice was false.

3. The Fee Award Is Mandatory

When a UPEPA motion succeeds, an attorney fee award is not discretionary — it is required. The $24,198 Lento Law was ordered to pay is the concrete illustration of what that looks like when a business sues and loses over a one-star review.

“Under New Jersey law, a business that files a meritless defamation suit over an online review does not just lose the case — it pays the reviewer’s legal bills.”

A Closer Look: Where the Decision Has Analytical Weaknesses

This is binding published precedent — but published does not mean beyond challenge. There are real vulnerabilities in the court’s reasoning that will matter in future disputes.

The ‘Public Concern’ Threshold Was Assumed, Not Analyzed

UPEPA only applies to speech on a matter of public concern. The court treated that threshold as undisputed — accepting without rigorous analysis that a private billing dispute between one client and one law firm qualifies. That conclusion is not compelled by the law.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s framework in Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469 (2008), requires courts to examine whether the speech promotes the public’s vital interests or predominantly serves the speaker’s own economic interests. In Senna, the Court held that statements intended to drive business away from a competitor were not a matter of public concern because they served the speaker economically. Hendrickson’s primary motivation was her own $5,000 dispute. The platform she used — BBB — was publicly accessible, but the medium is not the subject matter. Future courts may scrutinize this threshold more carefully rather than treating all consumer reviews as automatically qualifying.

The ‘Every Other Law Firm’ Statement Deserved More Analysis

The court acknowledged that Hendrickson’s statement — that every other law firm returns unused retainer funds — was “part hyperbole, part factual assertion.” Non-refundable retainers are widely used and ethically permissible in New Jersey. That statement is verifiably false and directly implies that Lento Law’s billing practice was aberrational. Under Lynch v. N.J. Educ. Ass’n, 161 N.J. 152 (1999), opinions that imply false underlying objective facts are actionable. The court did not explain why this statement escapes that principle. This is the opinion’s most analytically vulnerable point.

The Actual Malice Analysis Compressed Two Distinct Questions

The court disposed of actual malice by reasoning that Hendrickson may have understood the retainer agreement but still believed a partial refund was appropriate. That addresses her belief about fairness — not whether she subjectively knew, when she posted, that her specific claim about universal industry practice was false. Those are different factual questions that the compressed analysis does not fully separate.

“The public concern threshold finding — applied here without rigorous analysis — is the most likely point of challenge in future UPEPA litigation over consumer reviews.”

What This Means for Businesses and Individuals in New Jersey

For Businesses in Somerset, Middlesex, Hunterdon, Morris, and Monmouth Counties and Throughout New Jersey

Before suing over a negative review, understand the downside risk. A failed defamation suit under UPEPA generates a mandatory fee award against you. Unless your goal is to have the negative review taken down, that award can easily exceed any realistic damages recovery. Get experienced litigation counsel before acting — the analysis is fact-specific, and the distinction between actionable false statements of fact and protected opinion requires close attention to the actual language of the review.

For Individuals Who Have Been Sued or Threatened

If you have been served with a complaint, the 60-day UPEPA clock is already running. Do not wait. A successful UPEPA motion dismisses the case with prejudice and shifts your attorney fees to the plaintiff. If you have only received a demand letter or cease-and-desist, you have time — but consult an attorney promptly to assess your options and the strength of any UPEPA defense before responding.

Frequently Asked Questions: Online Reviews and Defamation in New Jersey

Can a business sue you for leaving a bad review in New Jersey?

Yes. A business can sue you for a negative online review by alleging defamation. However, New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law — UPEPA — allows you to move to dismiss the lawsuit quickly, before discovery, and to recover your attorney’s fees from the business if the case is dismissed under the statute.

What is UPEPA and how does it protect online reviewers in New Jersey?

UPEPA is the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61), enacted in 2023. It allows anyone sued for protected speech on a matter of public concern to file a motion to dismiss within 60 days of being served. If the motion succeeds, the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees.

What is the deadline to file an anti-SLAPP motion under UPEPA in New Jersey?

60 days from the date you are served with the lawsuit. This deadline is firm — missing it may forfeit the early dismissal and fee-shifting protections UPEPA provides. If you have been served, contact an attorney immediately.

Does UPEPA apply to every negative online review in New Jersey?

Not automatically. UPEPA applies to speech on a matter of public concern. Courts examine the content, form, and context of the speech. Consumer opinions about a business’s practices have a strong argument for public concern status, but the threshold is not automatic. This 2026 Appellate Division decision upheld UPEPA protection for a one-star BBB review of a law firm’s retainer policy — but the court’s public concern analysis was less rigorous than it could have been, and future cases may draw the line differently.

What makes an online review defamatory in New Jersey?

A review is defamatory if it contains a false statement of fact — not opinion or hyperbole — that harms the subject’s reputation, was published to a third party, and was made with the required level of fault. Pure opinions, rhetorical exaggeration, and statements that cannot be proven true or false are generally not actionable defamation in New Jersey.

Does this ruling apply to Google Reviews, Yelp, and Avvo, or only BBB?

The ruling involved a BBB review, but the legal principles apply to any publicly accessible online review platform, including Google Reviews, Yelp, Avvo, and similar sites. UPEPA applies to protected speech on matters of public concern regardless of the platform. The specific facts of each review will determine whether UPEPA protection applies.

What should I do if I receive a cease-and-desist letter about an online review in New Jersey?

Do not ignore it, and do not immediately take the review down without legal advice — removal may not end the dispute and could waive defenses. Consult a New Jersey litigation attorney. If you are later sued, the 60-day UPEPA clock runs from service of the complaint, not from the demand letter.

Can a New Jersey business recover damages for a negative online review?

A business can recover damages if it proves all elements of defamation, including that the statement was a false statement of fact (not opinion), published to others, and made with the required fault — including actual malice when the speech involves a matter of public concern. This is a high bar, and under UPEPA, a business that files a meritless defamation suit also risks paying the reviewer’s attorney’s fees.

Contact a New Jersey Litigation Attorney

Whether you are a business evaluating your options after a damaging review, or an individual who has been threatened or sued over something you posted, the law is moving quickly and the stakes are real. Lento Law Group v. Hendrickson was decided just days ago and is already binding precedent throughout New Jersey.

At The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, L.L.C., we handle defamation disputes, business litigation, and anti-SLAPP matters for clients in Somerset County, Middlesex County, Morris County, Hunterdon County, Monmouth County, and across New Jersey. We represent both businesses with legitimate reputational injury claims and individuals seeking UPEPA protection.