Trapping The Online Trolls – When Defamatory Reviews Damage Your Business

QUICK ANSWER

A business can take legal action over a defamatory Google review in Australia if it’s untrue, identifies the business, has been seen by someone else, and has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to its reputation. Since the 2024–2026 reforms, businesses can also use the platform’s complaints process to have reviews removed within seven days, ask a court to unmask an anonymous reviewer, and, in some cases, obtain a takedown order against the platform directly.

In recent years, disgruntled or vengeful customers have used Google as a weapon to unleash their frustrations against business owners, whether the complaint is fair or not. A false or exaggerated Google review can have detrimental, sometimes irreversible, effects on a small or medium-sized business, and the law in this area has changed substantially since 2023.

What is Defamation?

Defamation can briefly be described as the communication of material that causes serious harm to the reputation of an individual, where the allegations against them are untrue. To successfully establish a cause of action in defamation, the individual must sufficiently prove a series of elements that indicate that a matter published against them bore a meaning that is or was defamatory. Those elements include that:

1. the matter complained of must bear a defamatory meaning (whether directly or indirectly);
2. the matter must explicitly and specifically identify or concern the complainant;
3. the matter must be sufficiently published to at least one party (other than the complainant); and
4. the publication of defamatory matter about the plaintiff has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the person’s reputation.

From the 2005 Framework to Voller and Defteros

A national framework of model defamation provisions was enacted in 2005, focused on defamatory content published by traditional media organisations such as newspapers. As social media and internet usage grew, that framework became inadequate.

Two landmark High Court decisions shaped the modern law: Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27, which held that businesses hosting a public Facebook page could be treated as “publishers” of defamatory third-party comments on it, and Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27, which found Google was not a “publisher” merely by providing a hyperlink to defamatory content in organic search results.

A first round of reforms (“Stage 1”), rolled out from 2021, addressed the serious harm threshold, Concerns Notices, the public interest defence, and the single publication rule. But Voller left an open question for review platforms and page administrators: exactly when does hosting third-party content make you liable for it? That question has since been addressed by a second round of reforms.

The 2024–2026 Reforms: New Rules for Platforms, Google and Page Administrators

This is the most important development for businesses dealing with online reviews, and it postdates this article’s original publication. A second stage of model defamation reforms, dealing specifically with the liability of digital intermediaries, has now commenced in most Australian jurisdictions: NSW and the ACT from 1 July 2024, Victoria from 11 September 2024, and Queensland under the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025, which passed in December 2025 and commenced in early 2026 (South Australia has adopted parts of the scheme; Western Australia and the Northern Territory have not adopted it).

Under these reforms:

Technical intermediaries are exempt. A hosting, caching or conduit service isn’t liable for defamatory content it merely carries, provided it didn’t initiate the publication, select the audience, encourage the post, or edit the material.
Search engines have a specific exemption for organic (unpaid) search results generated by an automated process, though this doesn’t extend to sponsored or promoted results.
Platforms and page administrators have a new “safe harbour” defence. If they maintain an accessible complaints mechanism and take reasonable steps to remove or block access to reported content within seven days of a valid complaint, they have a defence to a defamation claim, unless they acted with malice.
Courts have new tools, including preliminary discovery orders to identify anonymous posters, and non-party takedown orders that can compel a platform to remove content even where it isn’t a defendant.

In practice, this shifts strategy for businesses: rather than assuming a platform can be pursued as a “publisher” under Voller, the first and often fastest step is now to lodge a formal complaint with the platform itself, while pursuing the reviewer directly with a Concerns Notice.

Serious Harm: What You Actually Need to Prove

The “serious harm” element, intended to filter out trivial claims, requires a plaintiff to prove they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, serious reputational harm (for a business, this generally means serious financial loss) as a direct result of the publication. Recent decisions have clarified how this is assessed in practice: in Rader v Haines [2022] NSWCA 198, the NSW Court of Appeal confirmed that hurt feelings or a grave allegation alone aren’t enough, harm depends on both the words used and their actual impact; in Selkirk v Hocking (2023), the court rejected vague assertions of harm unsupported by evidence. For a business, this means keeping records of any measurable impact, such as cancelled bookings, lost enquiries, or a drop in trade, from the time the review appears.

Concerns Notices, the Public Interest Defence, and the Single Publication Rule

Before commencing proceedings, a plaintiff must serve a Concerns Notice on the proposed defendant, a formal notice setting out the defamatory meanings alleged and giving the recipient the chance to make an offer to make amends (which can now include removing or blocking the content). A defendant may also raise the public interest defence, where they must show the published material was in the public interest, not simply that it was true.

The single publication rule prevents the limitation period resetting every time someone views a review online. The limitation period for defamation arising from an online publication is one year from the date the material was first published, extendable by a court to up to three years if the plaintiff shows it wasn’t reasonable to sue within twelve months. The rule won’t apply where a later version of the content is substantially different from the original.

Practical Steps If Your Business Receives a Defamatory Review

1. Preserve evidence: screenshot the review, note the date, and record any measurable business impact.
2. Use the platform’s complaints process first, most major platforms, including Google, now offer one, and a prompt complaint can trigger removal within days under the new safe harbour rules.
3. Consider whether the review might also breach the Australian Consumer Law, for example if it’s a fake review rather than a genuine customer experience; the ACCC treats fake and manipulated reviews as a form of misleading conduct, and this can be a faster remedy than defamation.
4. If the reviewer is anonymous, seek advice on preliminary discovery to identify them before the limitation period runs.
5. Send a Concerns Notice to the identified reviewer, and, if the platform hasn’t acted, consider a non-party takedown order.

Wrapping Up

The tort of defamation, once primarily associated with traditional media, has been substantially reshaped to address the internet and social media, and it continues to evolve. The 2024–2026 reforms mark the most significant change since the original 2005 framework, recalibrating who is responsible for third-party content online, businesses, platforms, and search engines alike.

How Ramsden Lawyers Can Help

Whether you’ve been affected by a defamatory review, need help navigating a platform’s complaints process, or are concerned about potential liability for a review you’ve posted or hosted, our Litigation and Dispute Resolution team has considerable expertise in defamation matters for both claimants and defendants across Queensland and beyond. We’re happy to arrange an obligation-free initial consultation to discuss your circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter and must not be relied on as legal advice.  Specific advice should be sought about your circumstances.