By Steven M. Katzman
An Orlando pool construction company has spent fifteen years building a 4.8-star reputation on Google. Over a single weekend, fourteen one-star reviews appear, most from accounts with no profile photo and no other review history. Several say the same thing in slightly different words: the company “takes deposits and disappears” and “uses unlicensed subcontractors.” The same week, a sales manager who left two months earlier to join a competitor posts on LinkedIn that the company is “about to go under,” and three customers with signed contracts forward the owner an email from him repeating that claim and offering them a “safer” builder. Two of those customers cancel. New leads drop by half.
Can the company sue the people who posted the reviews when it does not know who they are? Can it make Google take them down? Can it sue the former manager, the competitor, or both? How fast does it have to move, and what could it end up owing if the lawsuit fails?
Reputation is an asset with a dollar value, and for many closely held Florida businesses it is the most valuable one. Florida law gives a business real remedies when someone damages that asset with false statements of fact. But those remedies come with conditions that do not apply to most business claims: a pre-suit notice requirement in some cases, a short limitations period, constitutional protection for opinion, federal immunity for websites, and a fee-shifting statute that can turn a weak defamation suit into a bill for the defendant’s lawyers. This article explains how business defamation works in Florida, which related claims often matter more, and how to decide whether a lawsuit is the right tool at all.
What defamation is
Defamation is the publication of a false statement of fact that injures someone’s reputation. Libel is defamation in written or other fixed form, including online posts, emails, and reviews. Slander is spoken defamation. Florida treats the two largely the same way, and most modern business cases involve libel.
The Florida Supreme Court set out the elements in Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp (Fla. 2008). The plaintiff must prove:
- Publication: the statement was communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.
- Falsity: the statement was false. Truth is a complete defense, and a statement that is substantially true, accurate in its gist even if wrong in minor details, is not actionable.
- Fault: the defendant acted at least negligently as to the statement’s falsity if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, if the plaintiff is a public figure.
- Damages: the statement caused actual harm.
- Defamatory meaning: the statement tends to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, lower it in the community’s estimation, or deter others from dealing with it.
The statement also has to be “of and concerning” the plaintiff: a reasonable reader must understand it to be about this business or this person. That matters when a post names the owner but not the company, or criticizes “contractors like them” without naming anyone.
Businesses can be defamed. Corporations, LLCs, and partnerships can sue for statements that injure them in the conduct of their business or deter others from dealing with them, such as accusations of fraud, insolvency, dishonesty, or illegal practices. An owner or employee who is personally named and accused can have a separate claim of their own.
Defamation by implication. In the same Rapp decision, the Florida Supreme Court recognized defamation by implication: literally true statements arranged or presented in a way that creates a false and defamatory impression, for example by omitting the fact that makes them innocent. The court declined to recognize a separate claim for false light invasion of privacy, so in Florida these theories travel under defamation, with all its defenses.
Defamation per se
Some statements are so obviously damaging that Florida treats them as defamatory per se: statements accusing someone of a crime, or of conduct incompatible with the proper exercise of their lawful business, trade, or profession. “Takes deposits and disappears” accuses a contractor of something close to theft. “Uses unlicensed subcontractors” accuses it of violating Florida’s contractor licensing law. Both fall squarely within the category.
The traditional consequence of per se status was that damages were presumed, so the plaintiff did not have to prove a specific loss. Constitutional decisions have narrowed that rule considerably, particularly for media defendants and for statements on matters of public concern made without actual malice. In practice, a business plaintiff should plan to prove actual damages in every case, and treat presumed damages as a possible supplement, not the foundation of the claim.
Fact versus opinion: the line that decides most review cases
Only false statements of fact are actionable. Pure opinion is protected, no matter how harsh. “The worst contractor I’ve ever dealt with,” “overpriced,” “rude,” and “I would never hire them again” are opinions. They cannot be proved true or false, and a lawsuit over them will fail.
Florida courts distinguish pure opinion, which is based on facts the speaker states or that are already known to the audience, from mixed opinion, which implies the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts. “Based on my experience, I don’t trust them with a deposit,” preceded by an accurate account of a missed start date, is likely pure opinion. “Everyone in the industry knows they’re running a scam” implies facts the reader does not have and may be actionable. Courts read the statement in context, considering the whole post, the forum, and how a reasonable reader would understand it. Rhetorical hyperbole, exaggeration that no reasonable reader would take literally, is also protected.
Online reviews are read in a context where readers expect strong, subjective reactions, and courts give reviewers latitude for that reason. The reviews most likely to support a claim are the ones that assert specific, verifiable facts: the business did not perform work it was paid for, it committed a crime, it lacks a license it holds, it was shut down, it is insolvent, the reviewer was a customer when they were not.
Private figure or public figure
The level of fault a business must prove depends on whether it is a private figure or a public figure.
Most businesses are private figures. A private-figure plaintiff must show that the defendant was at least negligent about whether the statement was true.
A business can become a limited-purpose public figure by voluntarily injecting itself into a public controversy, for example by campaigning publicly on a zoning dispute, making itself the face of an industry fight, or courting media attention on the very issue the statements address. Very large and prominent companies may be treated as public figures for most purposes. A public-figure plaintiff must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, a much harder standard. Whether a business is a public figure is a question of law for the court, and it is often the most important ruling in the case.
Related claims that often matter more
Defamation is not the only claim available when someone damages a business with false statements, and it is frequently not the best one.
Injurious falsehood (trade libel). Where the false statement attacks the quality of a company’s products, services, or property, rather than the company’s character, the claim is injurious falsehood, sometimes called trade libel or product disparagement. Florida courts generally require the plaintiff to show a false statement published to a third party, that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known it would cause others not to deal with the plaintiff, that it played a material and substantial part in causing them not to, and special damages: specific, realized economic loss, pleaded with particularity. The special damages requirement means identifying the lost customers or lost sales, not just alleging a general harm to reputation.
Tortious interference. When a competitor or former employee uses false statements to pull customers out of existing contracts or identifiable business relationships, the stronger claim is often tortious interference, with the false statements as the improper means. Our guide to business torts in Florida explains the elements, including the requirement of an identifiable relationship.
Lanham Act false advertising. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), a business can sue a competitor whose commercial advertising or promotion misrepresents the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own or another’s goods, services, or commercial activities. A competitor’s sales pitch disparaging a rival, a comparison chart with false claims, or a campaign of fake reviews posted by a competitor can qualify. The Lanham Act offers injunctions, the defendant’s profits, damages, and attorney’s fees in exceptional cases, and it does not carry defamation’s state-law procedural requirements.
FDUTPA. False statements made in trade or commerce can also support a claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, with its prevailing-party fee provision. Our guide to FDUTPA claims in Florida explains who can sue and the fee risk that cuts both ways.
Breach of contract. A non-disparagement clause in a separation agreement, settlement agreement, operating agreement, or business purchase agreement can be enforced as a contract, and a breach claim does not require proof that the statement was false. When the person making the statements signed one, it is often the cleanest claim available. A former employee’s statements may also violate confidentiality or non-solicitation covenants, which our guide to non-compete agreements in Florida discusses.
Pleading these claims together is common, but under Florida’s single action rule, courts will not allow a plaintiff to evade defamation’s defenses simply by relabeling a defamation claim. When the injury flows from the defamatory statement itself, the related claims are generally subject to the same privileges and constitutional protections. The related claims add the most value when they rest on additional conduct, such as an existing contract, a solicitation campaign, or commercial advertising.
Online reviews, fake reviews, and anonymous posters
Why the platform is usually not the defendant
Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), an interactive computer service cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by someone else. Courts apply that immunity broadly. Google, Yelp, Facebook, LinkedIn, and similar platforms generally cannot be held liable for defamatory reviews or posts written by their users, even after being told the content is false, and even if they choose not to remove it. The defendant in an online defamation case is almost always the person who wrote the post.
Platforms do remove content that violates their own policies, and fake reviews, reviews from people who were never customers, reviews posted by competitors, and coordinated review campaigns typically do. Flagging reviews through the platform’s own process, with a clear explanation of the policy violation and supporting evidence, is often the fastest and cheapest remedy. Many platforms will also remove content that a court has adjudicated to be defamatory, though they are generally not required to.
Fake reviews and the FTC
A campaign of fabricated reviews may also violate federal law. The Federal Trade Commission’s rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, 16 C.F.R. Part 465, which took effect in 2024, prohibits writing, buying, or disseminating fake consumer reviews, among other practices, and exposes violators to civil penalties. The rule is enforced by the FTC and does not give a business a private right of action, but evidence that a competitor is behind fake reviews can support a Lanham Act or FDUTPA claim and may be worth reporting.
Identifying an anonymous poster
When the author is anonymous, the business can file suit against “John Doe” defendants and serve subpoenas on the platform, and then on internet service providers, for identifying information such as account details and IP addresses. Two practical points shape that process:
- Courts protect anonymous speech. Because the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, courts commonly require a plaintiff seeking to unmask a poster to show that it has a viable claim, typically by setting out the specific statements, explaining why they are false statements of fact, and making a prima facie showing on the elements, before ordering disclosure. Some courts also require notice to the poster and an opportunity to object. A complaint over reviews that are plainly opinion will not get past this stage.
- The platform is usually out of state. A subpoena to a platform headquartered in California or elsewhere generally has to be issued or domesticated in that state under its version of the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act. Florida’s version, for subpoenas coming in the other direction, is Fla. Stat. § 92.251. Platforms retain IP and account data for limited periods, so delay can defeat the effort entirely.
Suing someone outside Florida
In Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court held that posting defamatory statements about a Florida resident on a website that is accessible in Florida, and accessed here, constitutes committing a tortious act within Florida under the long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193. Whether exercising jurisdiction over an out-of-state poster also satisfies due process is a separate inquiry, but Florida courts can often reach out-of-state defendants who target Florida businesses.
Florida’s procedural traps
The pre-suit notice under § 770.01
Before suing for libel or slander published in a newspaper, periodical, broadcast, or other medium, Fla. Stat. § 770.01 requires the plaintiff to serve the defendant with written notice at least five days before filing, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements claimed to be false and defamatory. Failure to serve the notice is grounds for dismissal, and if the limitations period runs before the defect is discovered, the claim may be lost.
Florida courts have generally held that the notice requirement protects media defendants, not private individuals. Whether a particular blogger, online news site, podcast, or industry newsletter counts as media is not always clear, and courts have reached different results based on how closely the defendant resembles a traditional news outlet. Because the notice is inexpensive and its omission can be fatal, careful plaintiffs serve it whenever there is any argument that the defendant is a media defendant.
Retractions. Under Fla. Stat. § 770.02, if a newspaper or broadcaster published in good faith, under an honest mistake of fact, with reasonable grounds to believe the statement was true, and then publishes a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction within the statutory window after receiving notice, generally ten days for a broadcast or a daily or weekly newspaper, the plaintiff’s recovery is limited to actual damages.
The two-year deadline and the single publication rule
An action for libel or slander must be brought within two years under Fla. Stat. § 95.11, much shorter than the four- and five-year periods that govern most business claims. Under Florida’s single publication rule, Fla. Stat. § 770.07, the claim accrues when the statement is first published, not when the plaintiff discovers it and not each time someone reads it. An online review that has been visible for two years and one day is generally beyond reach, even if it is still costing the business customers today. A materially new publication, such as reposting the statement to a new audience or substantively editing it, may restart the clock, but routine continued availability does not.
A related statute, Fla. Stat. § 770.05, allows a plaintiff only one choice of venue for damages arising from a single publication.
Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute
Fla. Stat. § 768.295 prohibits filing or maintaining a lawsuit that is without merit and filed primarily because the defendant exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue. The statute defines that speech to include statements made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under its consideration, and statements made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work. A defendant who invokes the statute is entitled to an expedited hearing, and a defendant who prevails recovers its attorney’s fees and costs.
Florida’s statute is narrower than California’s, and whether it reaches a given online review, social media post, or email to customers depends on the facts and is not settled in every context. A review complaining about a contractor’s work is a weaker fit than a statement made at a city commission meeting about a pending permit, or an article on a news site. But any business considering a defamation suit over public criticism should assume the defendant will raise the statute, and should be confident before filing that the claim has merit and that it is not suing over protected opinion. A plaintiff that loses an anti-SLAPP motion can end up paying for both sides of a case it did not win.
Privileges
Some statements are protected even if they are false.
Absolute privilege for litigation. Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, including pleadings, testimony, and statements reasonably related to the case, are absolutely privileged, and the Florida Supreme Court held in Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co. (Fla. 1994) that the privilege extends to other torts arising from that conduct. Repeating the same accusations to customers or the press outside the proceeding is generally not protected.
Qualified privilege. Statements made in good faith on a subject in which the speaker and the listener share a legitimate interest or duty, such as communications between business partners, reports to a company’s own management, or statements to law enforcement or regulators, are conditionally privileged. The privilege is lost if the plaintiff proves express malice, meaning that the speaker’s primary motive was to harm the plaintiff, or if the statement went beyond the scope of the shared interest. Fla. Stat. § 768.095 separately gives employers immunity for disclosing information about a former or current employee to a prospective employer, unless the information was knowingly false or violated the employee’s civil rights.
Fair report. Accurate reports of official proceedings and public records are generally protected, even if the underlying records contain false allegations.
Remedies
Damages
A successful plaintiff can recover compensatory damages for harm to reputation and for economic losses, such as lost customers, cancelled contracts, and lost profits. The most persuasive damages cases connect the statements to identifiable losses: customers who cancelled and said why, a measurable drop in leads or revenue that coincides with the publication, and evidence ruling out other explanations. Our guide to proving business damages in Florida explains how lost profits are proved and the evidence courts expect.
Punitive damages may be available where the defendant acted with intentional misconduct, but under Fla. Stat. § 768.72 a plaintiff cannot plead them without first obtaining leave of court through an evidentiary proffer.
Defamation has no general fee-shifting statute in Florida. Each side pays its own lawyers unless a contract, the Lanham Act, FDUTPA, the anti-SLAPP statute, or a sanctions provision says otherwise. Our guide to attorney’s fees in Florida business litigation explains the exceptions and how proposals for settlement shift the math.
Injunctions
The remedy most businesses want is for the statements to come down. Courts are reluctant to order that. Florida courts have repeatedly held that an injunction against defamatory speech, especially a temporary one entered before any adjudication of falsity, is an unconstitutional prior restraint, and appellate courts regularly reverse orders directing defendants to stop making or to remove statements. The recognized exception is speech that is part of another intentional tort, such as a campaign of false statements to a company’s customers to interfere with its contracts, where the injunction targets the interference rather than the speech in the abstract. Our guide to emergency injunctions in Florida business litigation explains the standard for temporary relief. In practice, removal usually comes through the platform’s policies, a negotiated settlement, or a final judgment that the platform agrees to honor.
If someone is defaming your business
- Preserve everything now. Capture each statement with full-page screenshots showing the URL, date, and author profile, and use a web archiving service as well. Save reviewer profiles and their other reviews. Content disappears, sometimes because the author deletes it once a lawyer gets involved.
- Note the date of first publication. The two-year limitations period runs from that date, not from when you found the statement.
- Separate fact from opinion. List the specific statements that are false and verifiable. Those are the only ones a lawsuit can address.
- Use the platform’s process first for reviews that violate its policies, particularly reviews from people who were never customers and reviews tied to a competitor or former employee.
- Respond publicly with care, or not at all. A short, professional response can help with future customers. An angry one usually helps the reviewer. Health care providers in particular should never disclose patient information in a response: federal regulators have fined medical and dental practices for doing exactly that.
- Document your losses as they happen: cancellations and the reasons given, lead volume, revenue, and customer communications that mention the statements.
- Look for a contract. Check whether the person signed a non-disparagement, confidentiality, or non-solicitation covenant. That can change the case.
- Think hard before sending a threatening letter. A heavy-handed cease and desist letter can be posted online, draw more attention to the original statement, and invite an anti-SLAPP response. A well-drafted letter, sent for a defined purpose, can resolve the matter.
If your business is accused of defamation
- Do not repeat the statement. Every republication is a new potential claim.
- Preserve your evidence of truth. The documents and witnesses that support what you said are your best defense.
- Evaluate the defenses early: truth, opinion, privilege, the § 770.01 notice if you are a media defendant, the statute of limitations, and the anti-SLAPP statute.
- Consider a correction where the statement was wrong. A prompt correction can limit damages and often ends the dispute.
- Check your insurance. Commercial general liability policies often cover “personal and advertising injury,” which can include defamation and disparagement, subject to exclusions. Notify your carrier promptly.
- Train your people. Many business defamation claims start with a salesperson’s comments about a competitor or a manager’s comments about a departed employee. Clear guidance about what can and cannot be said prevents them.
Back to the pool company
Applying these rules to the opening example:
The fake reviews. “Takes deposits and disappears” and “uses unlicensed subcontractors” are factual assertions that can be disproved with deposit records, contracts, permits, and license verifications. If the accounts never did business with the company, that is itself strong evidence of falsity and of a policy violation the platform should act on. The first steps are preservation, platform flagging, and a careful review of the accounts for links to the competitor or the former manager. If the platform does not act, a John Doe suit with targeted subpoenas becomes an option, and the company’s ability to show specific false statements of fact positions it well for any unmasking standard.
The former manager. His LinkedIn post and his emails to the company’s customers are where the strongest claims are. “About to go under” is a statement of fact about solvency that can be disproved with financial records. Sending it to customers with signed contracts, while offering them a competitor, supports tortious interference in addition to defamation per se. If he signed a non-solicitation or non-disparagement agreement, there is a contract claim as well. These statements are poor candidates for an anti-SLAPP defense, and the two cancelled contracts give the company concrete damages.
The competitor. If the evidence shows the competitor directed or knew about the emails or the reviews, it may be liable for its own conduct, and for its employee’s conduct within the scope of his employment, under defamation, tortious interference, and, for any fake reviews or commercial promotion, the Lanham Act and FDUTPA.
Google. Under Section 230, the platform is not a viable defendant. It is the place to send flagging requests, the recipient of a subpoena, and, at the end of a successful case, the entity asked to honor the judgment.
The clock. The company has two years from the first publication of each statement, and much less time than that before IP and account data needed to identify the reviewers may be gone.
Frequently asked questions
Can I sue someone for a bad online review in Florida? Only if the review contains a false statement of fact that damaged your business. Negative opinions, however unfair, are protected. Reviews that falsely accuse a business of a crime, of not performing paid work, of lacking a license, or that are written by someone who was never a customer can be actionable.
Can I make Google or Yelp take down a defamatory review? You cannot force them to through a lawsuit against the platform, because federal law generally makes platforms immune from liability for user content. But platforms remove reviews that violate their policies, including fake reviews and reviews by competitors, and many will remove content a court has found defamatory.
How do I find out who posted an anonymous review? By filing suit against unnamed defendants and subpoenaing the platform and then the internet service provider. Courts usually require you to show a viable defamation claim before ordering the poster’s identity disclosed, and platforms keep identifying data only for limited periods, so it pays to move quickly.
How long do I have to file a defamation lawsuit in Florida? Two years from the date the statement was first published. The clock does not restart each time someone reads an online post.
Do I have to send a notice before filing? If the defendant is a newspaper, broadcaster, or other media defendant, Florida requires written notice identifying the false statements at least five days before suit. Whether an online publisher counts as media is not always clear, so the notice is often served as a precaution.
Can my business be sued for criticizing a competitor? Yes, if you make false statements of fact about the competitor, its products, or its people. Comparative advertising and sales pitches can also create liability under the federal Lanham Act. Truthful statements and genuine opinions are protected.
What if I sue and lose? Generally, each side pays its own fees. But if the defendant shows that your suit was without merit and targeted protected speech on a public issue, Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute requires you to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs. Contracts, FDUTPA, and the Lanham Act can also shift fees in some cases.
Talk to a Florida commercial litigation attorney
Business defamation cases are won or lost on early decisions: what was preserved, which statements are genuinely factual, whether a notice was required, whether the claim belongs under defamation, tortious interference, the Lanham Act, or a contract, and whether a lawsuit will repair the company’s reputation or draw more attention to the attack. Businesses that make those decisions carefully have meaningful remedies against competitors, former employees, and anonymous posters who spread falsehoods. Businesses that file in anger can end up paying the other side’s lawyers.
KWBR’s complex commercial litigation, corporate and shareholder disputes, and financial damages practices represent Florida businesses and their owners in defamation, injurious falsehood, tortious interference, and unfair competition cases, on both sides, in state and federal court, from our Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, and Orlando offices. If false statements are costing your business customers, or your business has been accused of making them, contact us before you respond publicly.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Statutes and case law change, and every matter turns on its own facts; consult a qualified Florida attorney about your situation.