New Jersey Appellate Division Applies Anti-SLAPP Law to Dismiss Defamation Claim Over Online Review

What Lento Law Group v. Hendrickson Means for Online Reviews, Defamation Claims, and Early Motion Practice in New Jersey

In New Jersey, a defamation claim based on an online review may face early dismissal if the speech falls within the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, commonly known as UPEPA, and the complaint does not plead a legally sufficient defamation claim. In Lento Law Group, PC v. Hendrickson, the Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of a law firm’s defamation claim over a former client’s Better Business Bureau review. The court held that UPEPA allowed the trial court to apply the Rule 4:6-2(e) motion-to-dismiss standard and that the challenged review was largely protected opinion, not actionable defamation.

The decision does not mean every online review is immune from suit. It does mean that context, wording, public concern, verifiability, and the sufficiency of pleadings may determine whether a speech-based lawsuit survives at the outset or gets dismissed quickly at the outset of the lawsuit.

What Happened in Lento Law Group v. Hendrickson?

The case arose after a former client posted a one-star BBB review criticizing a law firm’s non-refundable retainer policy. The client had paid a $5,000 retainer, the underlying matter resolved quickly, and the client requested a partial refund. The law firm declined, relying on the retainer language. The client then posted a negative review describing the experience and advising others to consider a different firm if they expected a quick settlement.

The law firm sued for defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The defendant responded by filing an order to show cause under UPEPA, arguing that the lawsuit targeted protected speech and should be dismissed. The trial court dismissed both claims and awarded the defendant attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, the law firm challenged only dismissal of the defamation claim. The Appellate Division affirmed.

What Is the New Jersey's Anti-SLAPP Law aka the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA)?

Anti-SLAPP laws are statutes designed to protect people from lawsuits that are intended to punish, discourage, or silence constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern. The term SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. These lawsuits often arise when a person, business, journalist, consumer, advocacy group, or other speaker is sued because of public criticism, commentary, petitioning activity, or participation in a public debate.

New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, known as the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act or UPEPA, gives courts a procedure for early review of certain lawsuits based on protected speech, petitioning, association, or public expression. “SLAPP” refers to strategic lawsuits against public participation. These are lawsuits that may be used to burden, punish, or deter constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern.

New Jersey’s UPEPA is codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61. In Lento Law Group, PC v. Hendrickson, the Appellate Division explained that UPEPA allows a person sued over protected expression to seek prompt dismissal of meritless claims that may chill free speech. The statute applies, in relevant part, when a civil claim is based on the exercise of free-speech rights on a matter of public concern.

For litigants, the practical point is that UPEPA can change the early posture of a case. A plaintiff may not be able to proceed through discovery simply because a complaint alleges reputational harm. If the case falls within UPEPA, the court may evaluate whether the claim has been adequately pleaded and whether the plaintiff has made the showing required by the statute.

In Lento Law Group, the Appellate Division applied New Jersey anti-SLAPP law to a defamation claim arising from a former client’s online review. The court held that UPEPA allowed the trial court to consider early dismissal under the Rule 4:6-2(e) motion-to-dismiss standard. The court also concluded that the challenged review involved a matter of public concern and largely reflected protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole, rather than actionable defamation.

New Jersey anti-SLAPP law does not protect every statement posted online. False factual accusations may still support a defamation claim in the right circumstances. But after Lento Law Group, parties should expect courts to examine the exact words used, the context of the statement, whether the statement can be proven true or false, and whether allowing the lawsuit to proceed would chill protected speech.

Why the Motion-to-Dismiss Standard Matters

One of the central issues in Lento Law Group was procedural. The law firm argued that the trial court should have applied a summary-judgment standard rather than a motion-to-dismiss standard. The Appellate Division rejected that argument.

The court held that UPEPA’s plain language permits dismissal under either a summary-judgment standard or a Rule 4:6-2(e) failure-to-state-a-claim standard, depending on the statutory basis for dismissal. The court also cited Town of Dover v. Richard Gonzalez for the proposition that N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-55(a)(3)(b)(i) requires application of the Rule 4:6-2(e) standard when the moving party argues that the responding party failed to state a claim.

That matters because a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion focuses on the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The court accepts properly pleaded facts and gives the plaintiff favorable inferences, but it may dismiss when the pleading does not establish a colorable claim and discovery would not cure the defect.

For businesses, professionals, organizations, and individuals involved in speech-based litigation, this is an important litigation-strategy point. A plaintiff considering a defamation claim must think carefully about whether the complaint alleges facts—not labels or conclusions—that can satisfy each required element. A defendant facing a claim based on speech should consider whether UPEPA creates an early path to dismissal.

Why the Court Treated the Online Review as Speech on a Matter of Public Concern

The Appellate Division agreed that UPEPA applied because the BBB review involved speech on a matter of public concern. The trial court had reasoned that online reviews about lawyer conduct function as part of the modern public square. The Appellate Division noted that UPEPA must be construed broadly and treated the review of the law firm’s retainer policy as protected speech unless the statement was actually defamatory.

That does not mean every private disagreement automatically becomes a matter of public concern. New Jersey defamation law considers the content, form, and context of the speech. A purely private attack made only to advance the speaker’s economic interests may be treated differently from consumer information shared with the public.

The important point is context. Here, the speech appeared in an online consumer-review forum, concerned a business practice, and was directed to potential future consumers of legal services. Those facts helped support UPEPA’s application.

Opinion, Hyperbole, and Defamation in New Jersey

A defamation claim generally requires a false and defamatory statement concerning another, unprivileged publication to a third party, and fault amounting at least to negligence. In the decision, the Appellate Division also emphasized that whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning is a question of law for the court.

The court focused on the distinction between actionable factual assertions and protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. A statement of opinion is generally not actionable unless it implies false underlying facts. Similarly, loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language is less likely to be treated as a factual assertion that can be proven true or false.

In Lento Law Group, the court concluded that statements such as “total rip off” and comments that another lawyer could settle the matter “for a lot cheaper” were hyperbolic, unverifiable opinions. The court also treated the reviewer’s “had I known” statement as an expression of belief about the experience, rather than a provably false factual assertion. The court noted that the review did not accuse the law firm of illegal conduct, such as fraud.

Why Actual Malice Did Not Save the Claim

The Appellate Division also addressed actual malice. When speech involves a matter of public concern, or when the plaintiff is a public figure, a plaintiff may need to prove actual malice. Actual malice is a demanding standard. It generally requires proof that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false.

The court found that the law firm’s complaint did not adequately allege actual malice. The court rejected the argument that actual malice was established simply because the client had signed a non-refundable retainer agreement. The court reasoned that the client may have understood the agreement but still believed, under the circumstances, that some portion of the retainer should have been refunded.

For plaintiffs, this is an important pleading lesson. It is usually not enough to assert that a defendant “lied” or “knew the statement was false.” A complaint may need specific factual allegations showing knowledge of falsity, serious doubts about truth, purposeful avoidance of truth, or another basis for the required level of fault.

Practical Takeaways for New Jersey Businesses and Professionals

Businesses and professionals understandably care about reputational harm. Online reviews can affect client trust, referrals, hiring, sales, and public perception. But Lento Law Group shows that not every harsh review will support a defamation claim.

Before filing suit over an online review, a potential plaintiff should evaluate:

• whether the challenged language is factual or opinion-based;

• whether the statement can be proven true or false;

• whether the review implies undisclosed false facts;

• whether the context suggests consumer opinion, criticism, or hyperbole;

• whether the speech concerns a matter of public concern;

• whether UPEPA may apply;

• whether attorney’s fees could be awarded if the claim is dismissed;

• whether non-litigation responses may better address the reputational concern.

The litigation decision should be made carefully. A poorly pleaded defamation claim may not only be dismissed but may also create additional cost exposure.

Practical Takeaways for Defendants Sued Over Speech

For a person or organization sued over public commentary, a review, a complaint, or other speech, the decision underscores the importance of early procedural review.

A defendant should evaluate:

• whether the lawsuit is based on speech, petitioning, association, or press activity;

• whether the speech involved a matter of public concern;

• whether UPEPA applies;

• whether the plaintiff has pleaded each element of defamation;

• whether the challenged statement is opinion, hyperbole, or unverifiable;

• whether the plaintiff has adequately alleged actual malice, if required;

• whether an order to show cause under UPEPA is available;

• whether fee-shifting may apply.

Because UPEPA contains procedural requirements and timing issues, early review of the complaint, the challenged statements, and the surrounding context can be important.

What Evidence May Matter in an Online-Review Defamation Dispute?

These cases are often decided by words and context. Relevant evidence may include:

• the exact review or post;

• the full thread, page, or platform context;

• the date and audience of the publication;

• the relationship between the parties;

• contracts, invoices, policies, or communications referenced in the post;

• prior correspondence between the parties;

• any demand for retraction or correction;

• evidence of falsity;

• evidence of fault or actual malice;

• evidence of reputational or economic harm;

• the procedural record if dismissal or appeal is at issue.

A lawyer evaluating a potential claim or defense would usually begin by separating provable factual assertions from opinion, emotional language, and generalized criticism.

What This Decision Does Not Mean

The decision should not be read too broadly. It does not mean that all online reviews are protected. A review that falsely accuses a business or professional of specific criminal, fraudulent, unethical, or objectively verifiable misconduct may present a different issue.

It does not mean that businesses and professionals have no remedy for false statements. It also does not mean that UPEPA automatically defeats every defamation claim. It does mean that New Jersey courts may scrutinize speech-based claims early, especially when the challenged statement appears in a consumer-review context and reads as dissatisfaction, opinion, or hyperbole rather than a provably false factual accusation.

When to Speak With a New Jersey Litigation Attorney

A New Jersey defamation or UPEPA issue should be evaluated before litigation positions harden. The analysis may turn on the exact words used, the context of publication, the applicable pleading standard, whether the speech involved a matter of public concern, and whether the plaintiff can prove falsity and fault.

Kemeny, Ramp & Renaud, LLC represents clients in New Jersey civil litigation involving serious injury, wrongful death, estate and trust disputes, guardianships, business disputes, and appeals. A new case, statute, or rule change may affect pending disputes, future claims, or litigation strategy. The next step is to evaluate the facts, deadlines, evidence, and available legal options.

---

FAQ

Can a New Jersey business sue over a negative online review?

A business may be able to sue if the review contains false, defamatory factual statements and the other elements of defamation are met. But harsh criticism, opinion, and rhetorical hyperbole are often protected. UPEPA may also allow early dismissal if the lawsuit targets protected speech on a matter of public concern.

Are online reviews always protected opinion?

No. Some online reviews may contain factual claims capable of being proven true or false. The legal issue is not the platform alone. Courts consider the content, context, wording, audience, and whether the statement implies false underlying facts.

What did the Appellate Division decide in Lento Law Group v. Hendrickson?

The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of a defamation claim over a former client’s BBB review. The court held that UPEPA permitted use of the Rule 4:6-2(e) motion-to-dismiss standard and that the challenged review was not actionable defamation because it was largely protected opinion or hyperbole.

What is UPEPA?

UPEPA is New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP statute. It provides a procedure for early dismissal of certain civil claims based on protected speech, petitioning, association, or press activity involving matters of public concern.

Does UPEPA apply only to news and media defendants?

No. The decision discusses UPEPA in the context of a former client’s online review. New Jersey law can apply public-concern and constitutional-speech principles in non-media contexts, depending on the facts.

Why does the motion-to-dismiss standard matter?

The motion-to-dismiss standard can allow a court to decide early whether the complaint states a legally viable claim. In UPEPA cases, this may prevent costly discovery when the challenged lawsuit does not adequately plead actionable defamation.