Tradies sometimes assume that any negative review is potentially defamatory and worth chasing through a lawyer. Customers sometimes assume that as long as they’re sharing their honest opinion, they can write whatever they like online. Both are wrong. Australian defamation law is more specific than either side usually realises, and the line between a strong negative review and a defamatory one is genuinely there. Knowing where it falls protects both customers from accidentally crossing it and tradies from spending money chasing reviews that wouldn’t actually qualify.
Here’s how Australian defamation law actually applies to customer reviews in 2026, what kinds of statements cross the line, and what defences customers and tradies typically rely on.
What defamation actually requires
To make out a defamation claim under the Uniform Defamation Acts as amended by recent reforms, a person generally has to show three things. First, the statement was published to a third party. Second, the statement identifies them. Third, the statement carries a defamatory meaning, which lowers their reputation in the eyes of ordinary, reasonable people. Reviews satisfy the first two elements easily. The third is where most claims hinge: not whether the words are negative, but whether they actually carry a defamatory meaning.
The “serious harm” threshold
Recent reforms to Australian defamation law introduced a serious harm threshold. The plaintiff has to prove that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. For a corporate plaintiff, that generally means serious financial loss. The threshold filters out trivial cases. A single bad review on a small platform that no future customer ever sees is unlikely to meet the bar. A widely circulated, demonstrably damaging publication is more likely to. The threshold matters because it stops defamation actions being used to bully reviewers off platforms.
Honest opinion is a recognised defence
The honest opinion defence applies when the review is clearly an opinion, related to a matter of public interest, and based on facts that were either stated, generally known, or true. A customer who writes “I thought the work was sloppy and I wouldn’t recommend this tradie” is expressing an opinion. As long as the underlying facts the opinion was based on are true and the review reads as opinion, the defence is available. The customer doesn’t have to prove their opinion is correct. They have to show it was honestly held and based on actual facts.
Truth is the strongest defence
The justification defence (truth) is available when the substance of the statement is true. If the customer wrote that the tradie didn’t show up on the agreed date and that the work was unfinished after a month, and both of those statements are accurate, the defence applies even if the publication is damaging to reputation. Truth is the cleanest defence because it is binary: the facts either happened or they didn’t. Customers leaving negative reviews are well advised to stick to facts they can prove.
Where reviewers actually get into trouble
Reviews most often cross the line when they make specific factual claims that are wrong and damaging. Calling a tradie a “scammer” implies fraudulent intent and is a factual claim, not just an opinion, unless the underlying facts genuinely support fraud. Saying the tradie “stole from me” or “broke the law” without basis is the same problem. So is alleging unlicensed practice, criminal conduct, or specific dishonesty without evidence. Strong negative opinions are usually fine. Specific damaging factual claims that aren’t true are where claims succeed.
Comparison with the tradie’s response
Tradies who threaten defamation in response to reviews should also be cautious about their own published replies. A response that calls the customer a liar, a scammer, or accuses them of trying to extort the business can itself be defamatory. The same rules apply to both sides. Defending yourself in a public reply is fine. Making damaging factual claims about the customer that you can’t substantiate is not. The right response to a tough review is calm, factual, and limited to what you can prove.
The concerns notice and offer to make amends
Australian defamation law requires a person who believes they have been defamed to send a concerns notice to the publisher before they can start a court action. The notice identifies the publication, the imputations, and what is being requested (typically a takedown, a correction, or an apology). The publisher then has a window to make an offer to amends, which can resolve the matter without court action. Most defamation claims that don’t settle through this process never make it to court. The concerns notice is a built-in cooling-off step.
Platforms aren’t liable in the same way
Recent reforms also addressed the question of platform liability. A review platform that hosts user-generated content is generally not the publisher in the same way the reviewer is, particularly if it provides clear, accessible take-down processes. That doesn’t fully shield platforms, but it does mean defamation actions usually proceed against the reviewer, not against the host. Tradies wanting to take down a review they consider defamatory should engage the platform’s complaint process first. Most platforms, including Reviewey, have a clear path for this.
When a defamation action is actually worth it
Defamation actions are slow, expensive, and reputationally fraught for the plaintiff as well as the defendant. They are best reserved for situations where a review contains clear, demonstrably false factual claims, has caused real damage, and the reviewer has refused reasonable requests to amend or remove it. For most negative reviews, the better strategy is a calm public response, a request for the platform to assess the content under its policies, and a focus on building positive reviews to drown the outlier. Litigation is the nuclear option, not the first move.
Australian defamation law is more constrained than reactive headlines suggest. Honest opinions are protected. True statements are protected. Reviews that fall short of the serious harm threshold can’t get off the ground. Customers should stick to opinions they actually hold and facts they can prove. Tradies should reserve defamation as a last resort and avoid responding in ways that put their own statements at risk. Most disputes end with a calmer conversation, not a court case.