Unfortunately in a lot of cases, these providers and others like them are right. Legally, there is very little that can be done to have defamatory posts removed, and there is an ever growing amount of case law to prove it. You can contact the service provider and formally request the post be removed. The service provider then has the right to decide whether or not they will oblige your request to take the post down.
You are likely to have more success if you instead go after the individual poster or user directly. You can request the individual remove or redact the post. If this does not work, you can make a defamation claim against the specific user, instead of going after the service provider.
If the terms of use for the service provider eliminate potential liability by discussing Section 230, but also attempt to prevent posting of defamatory and other inappropriate comments, the provider has often done what is required to protect themselves from future tort claims.
However, these service providers, depending on the jurisdiction, are not always given absolute immunity. In Washington for example, the Supreme Court held that if the plaintiff could prove the terms of use for Backpage.com were designed to assist in sex trafficking of minors, than the company would be liable and the protection offered by Section 230 would not be provided.
As a result of this mixed case law, there is no one standard option available for removing defamatory posts. Instead, you are left with a handful of options:
For more information about what options are available to you and what you can do to have defamatory comments removed from Internet service providers, contact Revision Legal’s Internet Defamation attorneys through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. For sites like Ripoff Report, ComplaintsBoard.com, and Yelp, this immunity is the foundation of their business model: they can host user reviews, including false and defamatory ones, without facing liability for the content. Courts have applied this immunity broadly and consistently since Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
The immunity applies even after the platform receives notice that specific content is defamatory and declines to remove it. This distinguishes Section 230 from traditional publisher liability, where notice of a defamatory statement followed by a decision to leave it in publication could establish liability. Under Section 230, the platform’s editorial decision — including the decision not to remove — does not transform it into a publisher for purposes of defamation law. This is the specific holding that makes direct legal action against the review site so difficult in most circumstances.
Section 230 immunity is broad but not absolute. The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings (the Backpage case) illustrates the most significant exception: when a service provider structures its platform in a way that facilitates or encourages the creation of specific illegal content, it may lose Section 230 protection as to that content. The Federal Circuit has also held that Section 230 does not protect a provider who creates or develops the unlawful content itself — a provider that edits user submissions in a way that materially contributes to their defamatory quality may lose protection for those edits.
The Ripoff Report business model has been tested on this theory. In Goddard v. Google, Inc., and in various cases against Xcentric Ventures (the operator of Ripoff Report), courts have examined whether Ripoff Report’s “Corporate Advocacy Program” — which charges companies to have negative reviews altered or removed — constitutes development of the content. To date, courts have been reluctant to find that this monetization strategy destroys Section 230 immunity, but the argument has not been uniformly rejected.
Because the review site itself is generally immune, the most direct path to relief is a defamation claim against the individual who posted the false content. This requires identifying the poster — typically through a John Doe subpoena served on the review site or the poster’s internet service provider — and then proving the elements of defamation: a false statement of fact, publication, the appropriate level of fault, and damages.
Review sites respond to properly served subpoenas in compliance with applicable court orders. While some platforms resist disclosure in the first instance, a court order directing disclosure is almost universally complied with. Review sites are not the poster’s attorney and have no privilege-based reason to protect the poster’s identity. Once identity is established, the defamation claim proceeds as a conventional civil action.
One practical consideration: the poster may be judgment-proof. If the false review was written by a disgruntled former employee with no significant assets, a successful judgment may be difficult to collect. This reality should factor into the decision about whether to pursue litigation versus other remedies, including reputation management, platform dispute processes, and strategic content creation to dilute the impact of negative reviews in search results.
Each major review platform has its own dispute process, and understanding those processes is essential before deciding on a legal strategy. Yelp offers a Business Owner’s Response feature and a process for flagging reviews that violate Yelp’s content guidelines. Google Maps allows businesses to flag reviews for violations of Google’s policies, including fake reviews and reviews with personal information. Yelp and Google will remove reviews that are clearly fake — created by accounts with no other activity, associated with IP addresses inconsistent with the claimed customer location, or posted in coordinated waves following a business dispute — but they will not remove reviews simply because the business owner disagrees with them.
The FTC’s guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, 16 C.F.R. Part 255, create a separate avenue for addressing fake reviews: if a competitor is paying for fake negative reviews about your business, those reviews are deceptive endorsements under FTC law, and a complaint to the FTC or a state attorney general may prompt investigation. The FTC has increased its focus on fake reviews and established rules in 2024 that specifically address the purchase of fake reviews and insider reviews.
Before filing a defamation lawsuit over a review site post, evaluate whether the relevant jurisdiction has an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Many states — including California, Texas, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada — have anti-SLAPP laws that allow defendants in defamation cases to seek early dismissal if the claim arises from protected activity on a matter of public concern. A successful anti-SLAPP motion can result in dismissal plus an award of attorney’s fees against the plaintiff. In California, anti-SLAPP motions are filed in more than a third of defamation cases, and plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate a probability of prevailing face both dismissal and fee awards.
Anti-SLAPP risk does not mean you cannot pursue defamation claims — it means you need to assess the strength of your claim before filing, consider jurisdiction carefully, and have a clear theory of how the statement at issue fails to qualify as protected activity on a matter of public concern.
If your business is the subject of false reviews on Ripoff Report, Yelp, Google, or another platform, Revision Legal’s defamation attorneys can help you evaluate your options. Contact us through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.
Defamation and false light invasion of privacy are related but distinct legal claims for harmful false statements. Here’s how they differ and what plaintiffs must prove to win.
Read more about Defamation and False Light Invasion of Privacy
Slander and libel are the two forms of defamation, one spoken and one written. Here’s how defamation law defines each, what plaintiffs must prove, and what remedies are available.
Read more about What Is Slander and Libel? Understanding Defamation
Internet libel can spread rapidly and cause lasting damage to your reputation. Revision Legal’s internet defamation attorneys explain your legal options for removing and recovering from online libel.
Read more about Libel on the Internet: How to Deal With It