A one-star review from someone who was never a customer.

NY CPLR § 215(3) · CIVIL RIGHTS LAW § 76-a

Fact versus opinion: the whole case in one question.

Defamation requires a false statement of fact. A review that says "the food was cold and the waiter was rude" is an opinion about an experience, and it is protected no matter how unfair. A review that says "they gave me food poisoning and the health department shut them down" makes two factual claims that are either true or false. If they are false, that is defamation.

New York courts look at the whole context: the specific words, whether they can be proven true or false, and whether the setting, a review site, signals to readers that they are getting opinion. Review platforms cut both ways. Readers expect opinion there, which protects a lot of harsh reviews. But a review that asserts specific, checkable facts, "they charged my card twice and refused to refund," "the owner has a criminal record for fraud," "their license was revoked," is still a factual claim, and the platform does not launder it into opinion.

The fake-review cases that are actionable almost always share a feature: the reviewer asserts an experience they never had, or a fact about the business that is demonstrably untrue. The non-customer who describes a meal they never ate is stating false facts, starting with the claim that they were a customer.

Why businesses have an easier time than individuals.

A false statement that injures a person or business in their trade or profession is one of New York's defamation per se categories. That means the law presumes harm, and you do not have to prove that a specific customer read the review and went elsewhere. Accusing a business of a crime, fraud, unsafe practices, dishonesty with customers, or lack of required licensing tends to fall squarely within that category.

That said, "presumed" does not mean "large." Damages in a fake-review case are often modest unless you can show actual losses, and the practical goal in most cases is removal and a retraction, not a judgment. Keep that in mind when deciding how much to spend.

Platform takedown versus a letter to the author.

These are different tools, and they work on different timelines.

Platform reporting is free and sometimes works, especially where the review violates an explicit policy: conflict of interest, off-topic, or clearly not a customer. Google, Yelp, and the rest apply their own rules and do not evaluate defamation. They rarely remove a review because a business says it is false. A lawyer's letter to a platform gets somewhat more attention than a report form, but platforms are largely protected from liability for what users post, and they know it. We send them when the policy violation is clear, with no illusions.

A cease and desist letter to the author is the tool with teeth, because the author is the one who is liable. The letter identifies the review, quotes the false statements of fact, explains why each is false, states the defamation claim and the per se category, demands removal and a written retraction by a date, and demands preservation of the author's records. It is delivered in a way that can be proven. In our experience, a meaningful share of fake reviewers remove the review within days of receiving a letter, because a fake review is an impulsive act and a lawyer's letter makes it expensive.

When the author is a competitor, the letter can also raise unfair competition and, where the review is part of a pattern, the possibility of a broader claim. When the author is a former employee, it can reference any confidentiality or non-disparagement obligations they signed.

The anonymous reviewer.

Many fake reviews come from accounts with a first name and no history. You cannot send a letter to "Jessica M." The usual sequence is:

1. Preserve the review, the profile, and any other reviews by the same account, with screenshots that show dates and URLs.
2. Look at the account's other activity. A profile that has reviewed your three closest competitors five stars each and you one star tells a story.
3. Report to the platform under its conflict-of-interest and fake-review policies.
4. If the review is clearly defamatory and the harm justifies the cost, seek the poster's identity through the court. New York allows a person who intends to sue to apply to the court, before filing, for disclosure needed to identify the defendant. Courts balance the poster's anonymity against the strength of the defamation claim, so the application has to show that the review asserts false facts, not opinion. If granted, the platform is ordered to produce account information, which usually leads to an email or IP address and from there to a name.

Unmasking is a court proceeding, not a letter, and it costs more than a letter. For a single fake review with limited reach, it is often not worth it. For a competitor running a campaign, or a review that is doing real damage, it can be.

The anti-SLAPP caution.

Before sending anything, consider New York's anti-SLAPP law, Civil Rights Law § 76-a. It applies to claims based on communications in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, and the statute directs that "public interest" be read broadly. Consumer reviews of businesses have been treated as speech on matters of public interest. When the statute applies, a defamation plaintiff must prove the statement was made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, the defendant can move for early dismissal, and a plaintiff whose case is dismissed can be ordered to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.

What this means in practice: a letter threatening to sue over a genuine customer's harsh but honest review is a letter you should not send. A letter about a fabricated review from someone who was never a customer is a different matter, because a fabricated experience is, by definition, a statement the author knew was false. We evaluate this distinction before drafting, and we tell clients when a letter would be a mistake.

The one-year clock.

New York gives you one year from publication to sue for defamation, under CPLR § 215(3). For an online review, the clock starts when the review is first posted, not when you noticed it and not each time someone reads it. Editing the review or reposting it elsewhere can create a new publication, but do not count on that. If a fake review is six months old, you have six months to decide whether to file, and the letter needs to go out now, not after another quarter of hoping it scrolls off the page.

What a cease and desist letter does here.

For a business with a fake review, the letter does four things. It forces a fact-versus-opinion analysis before anything goes out, which is itself valuable. It puts the author on notice that the statements are false and that continuing to publish them after notice is knowing, which matters under the anti-SLAPP standard. It demands the specific remedy that actually helps, removal plus retraction, by a date. And it creates the record you need if the next step is a platform escalation, an unmasking application, or a lawsuit.

It does not work on every reviewer, it does not bind the platform, and it does not get you damages by itself. For a genuine customer with a harsh opinion, it is the wrong tool entirely. The cease and desist hub covers that judgment in more detail, someone spreading lies about me covers the individual version of this problem, and a business used my photo without permission covers the flip side, where the false content is your own name or image in someone else's marketing. Our flat-fee demand letters page explains how the letter is prepared and sent, and if the reviewer is also a customer who owes you money, unpaid invoices for small businesses covers that side.