New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP Law Scores Another Victory: Appellate Division Protects Online Consumer Reviews

The New Jersey Appellate Division continues to define the scope of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA)—New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP statute—and its latest published opinion delivers an important message: dissatisfied customers generally have the right to express their opinions online without fear of retaliatory litigation.

In Lento Law Group, P.C. v. Hendrickson, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of a law firm’s defamation lawsuit against a former client who posted a one-star review on the Better Business Bureau website criticizing the firm’s non-refundable retainer policy.

The Facts

After retaining the law firm with a $5,000 non-refundable retainer, the client’s legal matter settled quickly. She requested a partial refund, arguing that relatively little work had been required. The firm refused, relying on its written retainer agreement. The client then posted a negative BBB review describing the firm’s fee practices as a “total rip off,” stating that she would have hired another firm had she known how the firm handled retainers and encouraging others to consider less expensive alternatives. The law firm responded by filing suit for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

UPEPA Changed the Playing Field

The lawsuit was filed after New Jersey enacted UPEPA, one of the state’s most significant free speech statutes in decades. The statute is designed to prevent Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation—commonly known as “SLAPP suits.” These lawsuits are often filed not necessarily to win on the merits, but to burden critics with litigation costs and discourage others from speaking publicly. Under UPEPA, when a lawsuit targets speech involving a matter of public concern, the defendant may seek expedited dismissal. If successful, the prevailing defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Courts May Dismiss These Cases at the Pleading Stage

One of the most significant aspects of the opinion is procedural. The plaintiff argued that courts should evaluate Anti-SLAPP motions using the summary judgment standard after discovery. The Appellate Division rejected that argument. Instead, the court held that UPEPA expressly authorizes dismissal under Rule 4:6-2(e)—the familiar motion to dismiss standard—meaning courts may dispose of meritless claims before expensive discovery begins. That interpretation advances the Legislature’s goal of preventing litigation itself from becoming the punishment.

Opinions Are Not Defamation

The court also concluded that the customer’s review was not actionable defamation. New Jersey has long distinguished between statements of fact—which may be defamatory if false—and opinions, rhetorical hyperbole, or subjective criticism, which are constitutionally protected.  See, N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964); Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125, 147 (1986); Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 529 (1994).

The court viewed statements such as: “Total rip off.”; “You can get a lawyer…for a lot cheaper” and “Had I known this was how this firm operates, I would have gone with someone else.” as expressions of opinion rather than objectively verifiable facts. Although some portions of the review contained factual assertions, the overall context demonstrated that the reviewer was expressing dissatisfaction with the firm’s billing practices rather than accusing it of fraud or illegal conduct. Context mattered. Consumers expect online reviews to contain opinions, personal experiences, and subjective evaluations.

Why This Decision Matters

The opinion carries implications well beyond lawyers. Every business today depends upon online reviews. While businesses understandably want to protect their reputations, this decision confirms that not every harsh review is defamatory. Courts will examine: whether the statements are objectively verifiable; whether they represent opinion or rhetorical hyperbole; the overall context of the publication; and whether the speech addresses a matter of public concern. Consumer reviews discussing pricing, customer service, billing practices, or personal experiences will often fall squarely within UPEPA’s protections.

The Cost of Filing the Wrong Defamation Case

Perhaps the most sobering aspect of UPEPA is its fee-shifting provision. Here, after dismissing the complaint, the trial court awarded the defendant more than $24,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs—a result left undisturbed on appeal. That financial consequence substantially changes the risk analysis for plaintiffs considering defamation actions arising from online criticism.

Practical Takeaways for Businesses

Businesses confronted with negative online reviews should proceed carefully before filing suit. A lawsuit may be appropriate where a reviewer makes demonstrably false factual allegations—for example, accusing a business of criminal conduct, fraud, or unethical behavior without basis. But when a review primarily reflects dissatisfaction, personal impressions, or subjective opinions, UPEPA creates a significant procedural hurdle. Filing suit in those circumstances may not only result in early dismissal but also expose the plaintiff to paying the defendant’s legal fees.

Final Thoughts

The Appellate Division’s decision reinforces New Jersey’s commitment to protecting free expression while preserving legitimate defamation claims based on false statements of fact. For businesses, the lesson is clear: before filing a defamation action over an online review, carefully distinguish between false factual assertions and protected opinion. UPEPA has shifted the balance in favor of early dismissal where speech concerns matters of public interest, and plaintiffs who misjudge that distinction may find themselves financing the defense they hoped to silence.