Background
In July 2023, Carly Hendrickson retained Lento Law Group, PC for $5,000 under a retainer agreement that expressly designated the fee as non-refundable. After her legal matter settled quickly, Hendrickson requested a partial refund. The firm refused, citing the non-refundable fee provision. In August 2023, Hendrickson posted a one-star review on the Better Business Bureau (BBB) website criticizing the firm’s retainer policy, calling the arrangement a “total rip off,” suggesting that other firms return unused portions of retainers, and advising prospective clients on tight budgets to seek firms without full non-refundable retainers. She did not accuse the firm of illegal conduct.
In March 2024, Lento Law sued Hendrickson for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Hendrickson responded with an order to show cause seeking dismissal under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Law Division motion judge dismissed both claims, found that Hendrickson’s BBB post addressed a matter of public concern, and concluded the law firm failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation because the post expressed protected opinion. The judge awarded Hendrickson $24,198 in attorney’s fees and $199.83 in costs. Lento Law appealed solely on the defamation dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed, resolving two issues. First, the court held that UPEPA’s plain text expressly authorizes dismissal under either the Rule 4:6-2(e) motion-to-dismiss standard or the Rule 4:46 summary judgment standard, at the court’s discretion. Lento Law’s argument that only the summary judgment standard applies — requiring all inferences to be drawn in the plaintiff’s favor — was rejected as inconsistent with the unambiguous statutory language. The court declined to consider out-of-state cases to the contrary.
Second, applying de novo review, the court concluded that Hendrickson’s BBB post was not defamatory as a matter of law. The statements — including characterizing the firm as a “total rip off” and speculating that other firms return unused retainer funds — were either hyperbolic opinion, unverifiable assertions, or expressions of personal dissatisfaction, none of which constituted actionable false statements of fact. Because her post addressed a matter of public concern (a law firm’s billing practices) and did not accuse the firm of illegal conduct, it fell within UPEPA’s protection. The court also found, in the alternative, that the complaint was devoid of any factual allegations supporting actual malice, as Hendrickson never claimed to be unaware of the non-refundable nature of the retainer — she may simply have believed the firm should have exercised discretion to refund part of it.
Key Takeaways
- UPEPA (New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law) permits dismissal at the pleading stage under the Rule 4:6-2(e) motion-to-dismiss standard — plaintiffs are not entitled to the more protective summary judgment standard as a matter of right.
- Consumer reviews on platforms like the BBB constitute speech on a matter of public concern under UPEPA’s broad mandate, triggering the statute’s protections against SLAPP suits.
- Hyperbolic, unverifiable expressions of consumer dissatisfaction — including calling a business a “rip off” or suggesting competitors offer better terms — are protected opinion and do not support a defamation claim, even when the reviewer signed a contract acknowledging different terms.
- A defamation complaint that omits any specific factual allegations of actual malice cannot survive an anti-SLAPP challenge when the speech involves a matter of public concern.
Why It Matters
This decision is an important early application of New Jersey’s 2023 anti-SLAPP statute and confirms that courts will use UPEPA aggressively to terminate meritless defamation suits at the pleading stage, without requiring plaintiffs to proceed to discovery or a summary judgment record. The ruling closes off a potential loophole by rejecting the argument that UPEPA’s reference to summary judgment evidence implicitly mandates the full summary judgment standard of review.
The case also sends a clear signal to businesses — including law firms — that suing clients or customers over negative online reviews carries serious risk under UPEPA, including mandatory fee-shifting in favor of the defendant. With amicus participation from the ACLU of New Jersey and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the decision underscores the breadth of New Jersey’s commitment to protecting consumer speech and public commentary on professional services from litigation-based suppression.