How we helped a small farm shop defend its reputation
Many small business owners will recognise the sinking feeling that comes when a single disgruntled customer, even after attempts have been made to address their concerns, launches into an online campaign to destroy a reputation built over many years and thousands of hours of hard labour. This was exactly what happened to our client in this case study. We share how we helped the owners of a rural farm shop stop a campaign of fake reviews and defamatory posts, protect their reputation, and regain control.
When defamation targets a local farm shop
Understanding online defamation and fake reviews
Investigating the source of the fake reviews
Why our client chose not to take her online defamation case to court
Would Google remove defamatory reviews without a court order
How to remove defamatory Google reviews and protect your business
When defamation targets a local farm shop
In late 2020, Charlotte, the manager of a pop-up farm shop in Oxfordshire, contacted our firm via a friend after facing escalating defamatory attacks. The farm, known for its five-star hygiene rating and local food products, had recently become the target of a former customer’s campaign.
The situation began after a minor disagreement over packaging - the customer had complained about the way some burgers were wrapped and was promptly offered a refund.
Within days, the issue snowballed. A local footpath closure, which had nothing to do with the farm, led to rumours spreading on social media suggesting the farm was responsible.
The same individual began posting public claims on Facebook that the shop’s food had made him unwell, that the owners were dishonest, and that the farm had unlawfully blocked public access. These statements were entirely untrue and the damage was beginning to show.
What started as Facebook posts evolved into a pattern of behaviour that included fake one-star reviews on Google, written under different names. Charlotte and her family recognised that this was no longer a simple misunderstanding. It was a coordinated campaign by a disgruntled customer aiming to harm their business.
Understanding online defamation and fake reviews
Under UK defamation law, anyone who publishes a false statement that harms another person or business’s reputation can be held legally responsible. Online defamation can include social media posts, blog articles, or reviews on platforms like Google, Facebook or Trustpilot.
Even if the statement is framed as an opinion, it can still be considered defamatory if it implies false facts that cause serious reputational harm. Fake reviews, especially when written under multiple identities, are a breach of platform policies and can amount to malicious falsehood, which is a legal tort in its own right.
Malicious falsehood refers to false statements that are published with the intention to cause harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Unlike defamation, which assumes harm to reputation, malicious falsehood requires proof that the statement is false, made maliciously, and caused actual damage, such as loss of business revenue.
In this case, the reviews falsely accused Charlotte’s farm of food safety issues and illegal practices. The reviews were published under five different names, but we suspected a single individual was behind all of them.
Investigating the source of the fake reviews
After our initial consultation with Charlotte and her family, we issued a letter of claim to the individual directly, outlining the legal case and requesting immediate removal of all defamatory content. He responded via a law firm, removed some Facebook posts, but denied writing the reviews.
To prove otherwise, we applied for a Norwich Pharmacal Order, a legal request for Google to disclose identifying information about the reviewers. Google responded with login data, IP addresses and emails, which revealed that the same individual was behind at least three of the reviews.
This evidence showed a clear intent to deceive and manipulate public perception by creating multiple fake personas to publish harmful reviews.
Why our client chose not to take her online defamation case to court
Armed with this data, we discussed the next steps with Charlotte. One route was to pursue legal action in the High Court for damages and an injunction.
Another was to issue further legal correspondence to the individual, seeking legally binding undertakings and removal of the content. While court proceedings were an option, Charlotte chose a strategic route that would minimise costs while still achieving meaningful results.
Charlotte, who lived in a small village, had little desire to engage in lengthy legal proceedings. She understood that in close-knit communities, reputations often speak for themselves. She believed that in time, the truth would be clear to all and that the individual responsible would be held accountable in the eyes of the community.
This decision enabled her and her family to focus on maintaining and growing their local business, free from the distraction and stress of prolonged legal proceedings, and to continue building on the trusted reputation they had spent years cultivating.
Would Google remove defamatory reviews without a court order
Yes. There are occasions, such as in this case, where Google is willing to take action without a formal court ruling. Instead of filing a claim, we contacted Google’s legal team directly and presented the evidence of policy breaches, including the use of multiple fake accounts by a single user.
This was only made possible following the disclosure application we had made, which revealed data linking the reviews to the same individual. With this compelling evidence, it became obvious even to Google that the reviews in question were defamatory.
Typically, Google requires a court order or an injunction to take down content it considers potentially defamatory, but on this occasion, they applied common sense. They accepted that the evidence clearly pointed to a coordinated effort to damage the reputation of our client’s business and agreed to remove three of the five defamatory reviews.
The reason the remaining two reviews were not removed was because, in those instances, it was more difficult to prove the identity of the poster, and the data did not clearly indicate they were from the same individual. These particular reviews, however, were less problematic for our client, especially after the most egregious reviews were removed, significantly reducing the harm to the farm shop’s reputation.
The outcome for our client
Charlotte and her family were satisfied with the result. Their Google rating improved, the most harmful posts were removed, and the individual behind the campaign was formally put on notice. Most importantly, they could focus once again on their community-based business without the anxiety of an ongoing online attack.
How to remove defamatory Google reviews and protect your business
This case demonstrates that defamatory online reviews can be challenged and removed using the right combination of legal knowledge, strategic action and platform compliance. False claims about a business's practices or products, even when disguised as reviews, are not protected speech. When done with intent to harm, they may also constitute malicious falsehood.
Anonymous attacks can be traced with the help of disclosure applications, such as a Norwich Pharmacal Order. Strong legal letters can often stop a defamation campaign without ever needing to go to court. And even if a full removal of all content is not possible, significant reputational damage can still be mitigated.
Lawyers' thoughts about the case
This case serves as a reminder of how devastating a single disgruntled individual can be to a small business when online platforms are used to broadcast misleading or malicious allegations. In our experience, most online defamation campaigns share a similar pattern: a dispute begins offline, is inadequately resolved from the perspective of the complainant, and quickly escalates into an online smear campaign.
The law is clear — defamatory statements and malicious falsehoods are not protected by free speech. However, proving defamation or malicious intent can be complex, especially when fake identities are used.
What made this case stand out was the strong data trail provided by our Norwich Pharmacal Order, which created a compelling picture of deliberate wrongdoing. Importantly, it also showed that Google, when presented with credible evidence, is capable of acting responsibly even in the absence of a court order.
We commend our client for taking a measured and dignified approach throughout, choosing not to escalate to formal litigation, and instead trusting that truth and transparency would ultimately win.