Google reviews have become one of the most influential ways for consumers and clients to share their experiences and concerns about the goods and services provided by a business. A few sentences can reach thousands of people and remain permanently visible to the public. A business with many positive reviews is likely to attract more clients. A false or malicious review, however, can cause significant reputational and financial harm to another.

This raises an increasingly important legal question: when can a person be held liable for an inaccurate Google review about a business or service provider? The answer lies primarily in balancing freedom of expression with the protection of reputation.

Freedom of Expression vs Reputation
Section 16(1) of the Constitution protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to impart information and ideas. A consumer review is ordinarily an exercise of this right. Consumers are entitled to describe their experiences and criticise businesses, even where that criticism is harsh or commercially damaging. That right is, however, not absolute. It must be balanced against the protection of dignity and reputation. 

South African law recognises that companies and other juristic persons have a protectable commercial reputation and goodwill. The principal cause of action where a review unlawfully damages that reputation is defamation.

When Does a Google Review Become Defamatory?
Defamation involves the wrongful and intentional publication of a defamatory statement concerning another person or entity. A Google review will satisfy the publication requirement because it is communicated to the public. The key questions are whether the review is defamatory and whether publishing it was wrongful. Once a claimant shows that a defamatory statement about them was published, South African law generally presumes wrongfulness and intention. The burden then shifts to the reviewer to rely on a recognised defence.

Truth, Opinion and Fair Comment
The strongest protection available to reviewers is the defence of truth and public interest. A statement that is substantially true and published in the public interest will generally not create liability. However, the difference between fact and opinion remains important.

An honest opinion based on disclosed and substantially true facts may qualify as protected fair comment, even if the opinion is harsh, exaggerated, or strongly worded. “Fair” does not mean the comment must be balanced or moderate; the key requirement is that the opinion is genuinely held. For example, saying “I waited an hour for my food and found it cold and tasteless. I was extremely disappointed” is likely to be protected criticism based on personal experience. By contrast, stating “This business defrauds its customers” is a factual allegation of dishonesty or criminal conduct. If that statement is false, the reviewer cannot rely on the defence of fair comment.

The facts supporting the opinion must also be true. A genuine complaint does not allow a reviewer to exaggerate, make unsupported claims, or create a misleading impression by leaving out important information. This was illustrated in Heiberg Estates CC v Maritz and Another (Reasons) (004005/2026) [2026] ZAGPPHC 149 (17 February 2026), where a former tenant’s Google review about a withheld deposit was found to be defamatory. The review left out important facts relating to the contractual basis for the deductions, damage to the property, and how the dispute was later resolved. The court ordered the review to be removed.

Businesses Have the Right to Sue for Defamation
Businesses do not have to accept defamatory statements simply because they operate in the public space. A trading company has a protectable commercial reputation and may claim damages for harm to that reputation without first proving a specific financial loss. This applies to businesses that are frequently reviewed online, including companies, sole traders, property agencies, franchises, and professional service providers.

At the same time, businesses that provide goods or services to the public must accept that criticism is part of operating in the marketplace. In Quandomanzi Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a SM Structures v Govender and Others (2023/43063) [2023] ZAGPJHC 516 (19 May 2023), the court confirmed that businesses should expect criticism about the quality of their goods and services. Legitimate criticism cannot be removed simply because it is commercially inconvenient.

Repeating a Defamatory Review Can Also Create Liability
A person cannot necessarily escape liability by claiming they merely repeated something already published online. The law recognises that publication may occur where a person repeats, confirms, draws attention to, or refers others to defamatory material. Each repetition may constitute a fresh publication. Accordingly, sharing a defamatory review on Facebook, WhatsApp, or another platform may expose the person sharing it to liability alongside the original author.

Remedies Available to Businesses
A business that has been defamed may seek an interdict or court order requiring the removal of the defamatory review. It may also claim general damages for harm to its commercial reputation. Where the business suffers actual financial loss, it may potentially bring a separate claim for patrimonial damages, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Practical Guidance for Reviewers
The safest approach is simple: tell the truth, separate fact from opinion, and limit the review to statements you can honestly support. Reviewers should be especially careful when making allegations of fraud, theft, corruption, or other criminal conduct. These are factual allegations and carry significantly greater legal risk than expressing dissatisfaction or sharing an opinion. Reviewers should also avoid making claims that go beyond their own knowledge or experience. Saying “I had a dispute with this business about my deposit” is very different from saying “this business routinely defrauds its customers.”

A review should also not be used as a tool to pressure a business into paying a disputed debt, providing a refund, or agreeing to a demand without a legitimate basis. Courts are unlikely to protect reviews that are used as a form of coercion. If a reviewer receives a formal demand to remove a review, the prudent approach is to obtain legal advice before ignoring it. Continuing to publish content that is later found to be defamatory can have serious consequences, including adverse costs orders and contempt proceedings if a court order is breached.

The Line Between a Complaint and Defamation
The law does not seek to silence genuine consumer criticism. Freedom of expression protects a consumer’s right to share an honest experience and express even strong opinions about the quality of goods or services. However, a reviewer who publishes false statements of fact, makes unsupported allegations of criminal or dishonest conduct, creates a misleading impression by leaving out important information, repeats defamatory claims made by others, or uses a review to pressure a business may face legal liability.

The key distinction is not between positive and negative reviews, but between lawful criticism and unlawful publication. An honest and accurate review based on personal experience, and clearly expressed as an opinion, is an important and legitimate form of consumer expression. A review that crosses the line into false statements, misleading factual allegations, or abusive use of the platform may amount to defamation, with courts increasingly willing to provide effective remedies.

While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the writers of articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes.