More than 60 fake reviews posted from Ohio on a Texas law firm’s online business page may be defamatory because they are more than opinions and can be proven true or false, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled.

The Fifth District found that the reviews on the Google business page for Amaro Law Firm contain statements describing fictitious client relationships, in which the supposed clients criticized the firm for a lack of communication or follow-up. Because all of those statements can easily be checked, the firm can continue its defamation lawsuit against two Licking County residents, the recent opinion concluded.

Nearly 100 fake reviews were posted in 2022 on the Houston law firm’s Google business page. The reviews were associated with separate Google accounts listing different names. Amaro’s 2023 lawsuit in Licking County Common Pleas Court alleged the reviewer names were never potential or actual clients of the law firm.

The IP address used to post the reviews was traced back to the residence of Patrick and Ronald DeMichael in Licking County. Before the reviews were posted, the law firm had the highest rating of five stars and more than 1,500 positive reviews. Businesses with higher rankings appear more prominently in search and map results on Google.

The Fifth District ruled the remaining fake reviews from the DeMichael IP address – including ones that had stars only – are protected opinions and cannot be defamatory.

The trial court had dismissed the Amaro lawsuit in December 2023, finding all of the reviews were opinions protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court’s decision overturns the judgment, and the case returns to the trial court for additional proceedings.

Ninety-Nine Reviews Posted in Five Months From One Address
The Amaro firm specializes in personal injury cases. The firm’s complaint asserted that its listing on Google My Business was flooded with 99 fake reviews with three stars during a five-month period from February to June 2022. The lawsuit alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, trade libel, and tortious interference with business relations.

The firm argued the reviews were false because the names connected to the email accounts weren’t potential or actual clients. The reviews were designed to spread a false impression of widespread client dissatisfaction with the firm’s services, and the statements injured the firm’s reputation, Amaro contended. It stated that the fake reviews caused a noticeable decline in inquiries and new clients generated through the Google page.

In August 2023, the DeMichaels asked the trial court to dismiss the case. They argued in part that the reviews were constitutionally protected opinions. Because Amaro’s other claims relied on the defamation allegations, those claims must also be dismissed, the DeMichaels maintained.

The trial court found that a reasonable reader of the reviews wouldn’t believe the statements were factual, and would instead consider them to be opinions. The statements were protected opinion under the First Amendment, the court stated. It also dismissed the other claims.

The law firm appealed to the Fifth District.

Appeals Court Evaluates Whether Reviews Were Factual or Opinion Statements
The Fifth District opinion, written by Judge W. Scott Gwin, grouped the 99 reviews into categories. To decide whether possibly defamatory language is a statement of fact or opinion, the court explained it must review the circumstances, including four factors: the specific language used; whether the statement is verifiable; the statement’s general context; and the broader context in which the statement appeared.

Of the 99 reviews, 57 contained statements such as “no follow-up,” “never called me back,” and “no communication.” Some of these reviews also contained language such as “case,” “experience,” and “outcome,” specifically referencing the reviewer’s case. Five other reviews used subjective language like “poor communication,” but also made specific references indicating the reviewer was a client or potential client. They included comments like “dealing with personal injury case,” “called about an accident,” and “no idea what is going on with case.”

The Fifth District noted that these 62 reviews – categorized as “no communication reviews” or “client language reviews” – leave readers of the business listing with the impression the reviewer was a client and the law firm wasn’t responsive. It can be verified whether the reviewer had a case with the law firm and whether the firm returned phone calls, updated a client, or completed work, the opinion explained.

“When a review contains specific statements capable of being proved true or false in explanation for a negative online review or rating, these statements can be grounds for a defamation claim,” the opinion stated.

The court described the general context as 99 reviews posted in an online forum, submitted in a fairly short timeframe and presented as being from separate individuals. Readers would believe that the reviewers had actual experiences with the law firm, the court noted. In the broader context, the reviews were on a Google My Business page. The Google terms of service state contributions “must be based on real experiences and information.” Also, “content should reflect [the user’s] genuine experience at the location and should not be posted to manipulate a place’s ratings.” The policy adds, “Don’t post fake content, don’t post the same content multiple times, and don’t post content for the same place from multiple accounts.”

The four factors for analyzing the case indicate that 62 reviews weren’t protected opinions and may be defamatory, the Fifth District ruled. It determined the other 37 reviews were opinions.

The case returns to the trial court because it incorrectly found that all 99 reviews were opinions. The Fifth District noted that the 37 opinion reviews also will be relevant for the trial court to consider as possible evidence of the large volume of reviews connected to the DeMichaels, the systematic way the reviews were constructed, and a pattern of conduct.

Judges Craig Baldwin and William Hoffman joined Judge Gwin’s opinion.

Amaro v. DeMichael, 2024-Ohio-3290.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.