Background
HSI Security Systems installed and maintained a security system at a house owned by Tara Lawrence that also served as the principal office of Lawrence Law, Inc. After work performed in October 2021, HSI billed Lawrence $1,015.96, including $255 for an ethernet interface and $690 for six hours of service and travel. Lawrence’s fiancé, Dean Hill, later helped address the disputed bill and cancellation of the monitoring service.
In May 2022, Hill posted a negative Yelp review stating, among other things, that he had paid nearly $1,000 to upgrade the system but that the work was “a $20 network card.” HSI sued Hill and Lawrence Law for defamation. Hill filed a special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150. The trial court denied the motion after concluding that most of the review was protected opinion but that the statement about paying nearly $1,000 for a $20 network card implied actionable facts.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals agreed that the challenged portion of the Yelp review could reasonably be understood as asserting objective facts—specifically, that Hill was an HSI customer and that HSI charged nearly $1,000 to install a network card worth $20. The review’s overall tenor and language did not negate that factual implication, and the statement was capable of being proved true or false. The remainder of the review consisted of constitutionally protected opinions.
HSI nevertheless failed to present substantial evidence supporting a prima facie defamation case because it did not produce evidence that the potentially actionable statement was false. Its invoice showed that it charged $945 for the card and installation—$255 for the card and $690 for labor—but HSI submitted nothing countering Hill’s declaration that the same card could be found online for about $20. The court therefore held that Hill’s anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted, reversed the denial, and remanded. It did not reach Hill’s statute-of-limitations argument.
Key Takeaways
- An online consumer review may combine protected opinions with statements that reasonably imply objectively verifiable facts.
- When allegedly defamatory speech concerns a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must produce evidence of falsity to satisfy its prima facie burden under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute.
- HSI’s invoice corroborated the review’s statement that the installation cost nearly $1,000 and did not rebut the evidence that the network card was available online for about $20.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that identifying a potentially actionable factual assertion does not, by itself, defeat an anti-SLAPP motion. A defamation plaintiff must support every required element—including falsity—with evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to rule in its favor.
For businesses challenging negative online reviews, the ruling underscores the distinction between harsh criticism, which is generally protected opinion, and false factual claims. Even when a review crosses into factual assertions, the business must produce evidence showing that those assertions are false.