A one-star review with a false, damaging claim sits at the top of your Google listing, visible to every potential client searching your name. The instinct is to assume nothing can be done about it. That is usually wrong, but the legal pathway depends on the size of your business and exactly what the review says.

Book a confidential strategy call

The First Question: Can Your Business Actually Sue?

Under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), most corporations with 10 or more employees cannot bring a defamation claim at all. This catches out a lot of business owners who assume the protection automatically extends to their company. If your business has fewer than 10 employees, or you trade as a sole trader, you are not excluded, and the analysis below applies in the usual way.

If your business does fall into the excluded category, the review is not necessarily beyond reach. A false statement made in trade or commerce can still found a claim under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading or deceptive conduct, or in some cases support a claim for injurious falsehood. The right pathway depends on what was actually said and the size and structure of your business.

When Does a Review Cross the Line Into Defamation?

Not every harsh review is defamatory, and that distinction matters before you commit to legal action. A review stating that the food was cold or the service was slow is an expression of opinion, and honest opinion based on a genuine experience is generally protected. A review is more likely to be defamatory where it makes a false statement of fact, rather than expressing dissatisfaction, for example a false claim that a business engaged in fraud, overcharged deliberately, or provided unsafe or unlicensed work.

Since 1 July 2021, Queensland claimants must also clear the serious harm threshold under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld). You need to show the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation, or for an eligible small business, serious financial loss. This is not a high bar in principle, but it does require real evidence, not just an assertion that the review was upsetting.

Proving the Damage: What Actually Works

Reported decisions show that claimants who succeed at the serious harm stage typically bring concrete, dated evidence connecting the review to a measurable loss, rather than asking a court to infer harm from the review’s existence alone.

• Financial records showing a clear drop in revenue or bookings beginning on or near the date of the review.
• Written statements from existing or prospective clients confirming they declined to engage because of the review.
• Evidence of the review’s prominence and reach, including its position on your Google Business Profile and how many people are likely to have seen it.

Building this evidence base early, rather than after legal action has already begun, materially strengthens your position and shortens the path to a resolution.

The Reviewer Is Anonymous. Does That Protect Them?

No. Anonymity online is not a legal shield. Australian courts have repeatedly granted leave for preliminary discovery applications aimed at identifying anonymous reviewers. In Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126, the Federal Court gave a dentist leave to serve Google with an application seeking the identifying details of an anonymous reviewer, accepting that the applicant did not need to prove the defamation claim itself at that stage, only that he might have a right to relief, under rule 7.22 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Separately, in Musicki v de Tonnerre [2023] FCA 222, the Federal Court again confirmed that platform disclosure orders are a genuine and available tool for identifying anonymous publishers of defamatory content, reinforcing that hiding behind a pseudonym is not a reliable strategy for someone posting false claims online.

What You Can Actually Do

Before commencing defamation proceedings in Australia, a mandatory Concerns Notice must generally be issued to the publisher, setting out the defamatory imputations and giving them the opportunity to make an offer to make amends. Getting this notice right matters: it frames the entire dispute and often produces a fast resolution without the need for proceedings at all.

• Issue a Concerns Notice, which is the required first step before proceedings in almost all cases.
• Pursue removal or retraction directly with the platform or publisher, often the fastest practical outcome.
• Apply for preliminary discovery to identify an anonymous reviewer where the identity is genuinely unknown.
• Pursue damages where the harm is serious and the matter does not resolve at the Concerns Notice stage.

Why Speed Matters

Under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), the limitation period for a defamation claim is one year from the date of publication. Reviews also tend to compound: they get shared, screenshotted, and referenced by other prospective clients the longer they remain visible. Acting early both protects your legal position and limits the ongoing commercial damage.

Reputation damage compounds. Get advice before the window closes.

Book a confidential consultation
Request a strategy call

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can my company sue for a defamatory Google review?

A: It depends on the size of your business. Under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), corporations with 10 or more employees generally cannot bring a defamation claim. Sole traders and smaller businesses can. Larger corporations excluded from defamation claims may still have a parallel claim under the Australian Consumer Law for misleading or deceptive conduct.

Q: Is a negative review automatically defamatory?

A: No. A review that expresses a genuine opinion, even a harsh one, such as criticising service speed or food quality, is generally protected. A review is more likely to be defamatory where it makes a false statement of fact, for example a false allegation of fraud or dishonesty, rather than simply expressing dissatisfaction.

Q: What is the serious harm threshold and how do I prove it?

A: Since 1 July 2021, Queensland claimants must show the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation (or serious financial loss for an eligible small business). Courts look for concrete evidence: financial records showing a loss connected to the review, and statements from people who declined to engage because of it, rather than an assumption that any bad review meets the threshold.

Q: The reviewer is anonymous. Can I still take action?

A: Yes. Australian courts have granted leave for preliminary discovery applications to identify anonymous reviewers, including in Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126 and Musicki v de Tonnerre [2023] FCA 222. Anonymity makes the process slower, but it does not make the reviewer untouchable.

Q: Do I have to send a Concerns Notice before I can sue?

A: In almost all cases, yes. A Concerns Notice is the mandatory first step under Australian defamation law before proceedings can be commenced. It must identify the defamatory imputations and gives the publisher the opportunity to make amends, often resolving the matter without further action.

Q: How long do I have to act on a defamatory review?

A: The limitation period for a defamation claim under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) is one year from the date of publication. Given that reviews also tend to spread and compound the longer they remain visible, both your legal position and your commercial position favour acting promptly.