united-states georgia
Can you be sued for publishing this negative review of a contractor?
<p>Suppose that a homeowner, Bob, had a contractor do some work in his attic.  There was a fire safe in the attic with a couple thousand dollars in old coins.  After the contractor left, Bob went into the attic and found that the fire safe had been broken open and the money was gone.  When confronted, the contractor denied taking it.  The only evidence that the contractor, specifically, broke into the safe was that it was discovered to be broken into shortly after the contractor left.</p>
<p>After Bob went to the police and was told that it was his word against the contractor's, he posted a negative review online recounting the facts.  The review didn't directly say that the contractor stole the money, just that no one else was in the attic, no one else knew the money was there, and the money was gone after he left.  Assume that Bob is telling the truth as he believes it.</p>
<p>Does the contractor have a valid claim against Bob for defamation (or any other claim)?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Can you be sued for publishing a negative review of a contractor</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, because the <em>import</em> of your review suggests that the contractor stole the coins. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/20061324631se2d69311256" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Bellemead, LLC v. Stoker</em>, 631 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2006)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a court looks to &quot;the plain import of the words spoken&quot; in order to
ascertain whether the words constitute slander per se. [..]. To be
slander per se, the words &quot;are those which are recognized as injurious
on their face — without the aid of extrinsic proof.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(citations omitted, quotation marks in original).</p>
<p>Even prefacing your narrative with language such as &quot;<em>I think</em>&quot; or &quot;<em>in my opinion</em>&quot; might not suffice to preempt that import. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/1990498497us11498" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.</em>, 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If a speaker says, &quot;In my opinion John Jones is a liar,&quot; he implies a
knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an
untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his
opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his
assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false
assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion
does not dispel these implications; and the statement, &quot;In my opinion
Jones is a liar,&quot; can cause as much damage to reputation as the
statement, &quot;Jones is a liar.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Accordingly, you will need evidence that supports the conjectures you portrayed in the review. In this regard, the police's response suggests that you have no evidence with which you could avail yourself of the defense of <em>truth</em>.</p>
<p>The contractor's position would be reinforced if the narrative in your review omits the police's response. That is because your decision to withhold that information tends to deprive the contractor of the benefit of the [readers'] doubt.</p>

<p>You could be sued, because anyone can be sued for anything.</p>
<p>He couldn't win. You stated truthful facts and an opinion whose factual basis is disclosed.</p>
<p>Neither are actionable as defamation. To prevail he would have to show that you made a false statement of fact, or that your opinion implied a false statement of fact based upon undisclosed facts.</p>
