You wrote a one-star review about a vacuum cleaner that stopped working after two weeks. You called it a “total piece of junk” and said the company “sells garbage.” The business owner is furious. They claim you defamed them. Can they sue you and win? Probably not, but the answer depends on one critical distinction: whether your statement is an opinion or a false statement of fact.

Defamation law protects your reputation against false statements that harm it. But it does not protect people from hurt feelings caused by honest opinions. When you leave a product review, the legal outcome hinges on how a reasonable person would understand your words. If you claim the vacuum cleaner “broke immediately,” that is a specific factual claim that can be proven true or false. If the vacuum actually worked for a year, that statement is false and could support a defamation claim. If you simply say the vacuum “sucks” as in performs poorly, that is subjective opinion. You cannot be sued for an opinion, no matter how harsh.

Courts look at the context. On review sites, shoppers expect subjective reactions. A phrase like “worst purchase ever” is clearly opinionated hyperbole. But a statement like “the manufacturer used cheap plastic that cracked within a week” is a factual assertion. If the plastic did not crack, the reviewer may have crossed the line. The key is that defamation requires a false statement of fact that damages the business’s reputation. Expressing disappointment or anger is not enough.

What about reviews that include exaggerations? If you write “this blender tried to kill me,” a court would likely treat that as obvious exaggeration, not a literal claim. That is protected as rhetorical hyperbole, a long-recognized defense in defamation cases. However, if you state “the blender’s blade flew off and hit my child,” that is a factual claim about a dangerous defect. If it never happened, you could be liable.

Businesses have sued reviewers over negative reviews, but they rarely win unless the review contains provably false facts. In one notable case, a hotel sued a guest who posted a review claiming the hotel had bedbugs. The guest had photos and evidence. The court ruled in favor of the guest because the statement was true. Truth is an absolute defense. If you say a product is defective and it is, you are protected. If you say it is defective but it is not, you may have a problem.

Another common pitfall is accusing a business of illegal or unethical behavior. Saying a restaurant “serves spoiled meat” implies a factual assertion about health violations. That could lead to a defamation lawsuit if the meat is fresh. Similarly, claiming a company “scams its customers” implies systematic fraud. Courts treat such statements as factual allegations, not mere opinions. If you cannot prove the fraud, you are at risk.

The rise of fake reviews has added another layer. If a competitor posts a fake negative review to harm a business, that is not only defamatory but also potentially a violation of unfair competition laws. Conversely, if a business hires people to post fake positive reviews, that may constitute false advertising. But for the individual reviewer, the rule remains: stick to your personal experience and avoid making statements you cannot back up.

What about anonymous reviews? Anonymity does not shield you. Courts can force platforms to reveal your identity through a subpoena. If your false statement causes real financial harm to a business, you can be held liable. The best protection is honesty. If you describe exactly what happened—the product failed, the service was slow—and avoid wild accusations, you are on safe ground.

In summary, the legal difference between a protected opinion and defamatory falsehood comes down to verifiability. Opinions cannot be proven true or false; factual claims can. If you keep your reviews to your own subjective experience and avoid stating unverifiable facts about the business’s conduct or product defects, you have little to fear. But if you assert specific false facts, you could end up in court. The law gives you wide latitude to criticize, but it does not give you permission to lie.