When a false Google review appears on your business profile, the instinct is to get it removed as fast as possible. Many business owners assume defamation is the only route. For the business itself, it often is not.

Working out how to remove bad Google reviews legally starts with a question that has nothing to do with the review itself. Who is bringing the claim? That answer decides whether defamation is available at all, or whether misleading and deceptive conduct, injurious falsehood, or a straightforward platform takedown is the more realistic path.

Who Can Actually Sue for Defamation?

Under the defamation legislation applying in each State and Territory, including the Defamation Act 2005 in Victoria and its equivalents elsewhere, a corporation generally has no cause of action for defamation. The exception is what the legislation calls an excluded corporation. Broadly, that means a not-for-profit, or a company with fewer than ten employees that is not related to another corporation.

The effect is blunt. A sole trader or a small company with eight staff can potentially sue over a false review. A company with thirty employees cannot, however damaging or untrue the review happens to be.

That does not leave the larger business without options. If the review names a director and accuses them of personal dishonesty, that person has their own reputation and their own potential claim, separate from the company. Statements attacking an individual personally are treated differently from statements attacking the business.

What a Defamation Claim Requires

A claimant has to show the publication conveyed a defamatory imputation about them, that it was published to a third party, and that it identified them. Under the reforms enacted in most jurisdictions from July 2021, an individual must also show the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation. An excluded corporation has to go further and show serious financial loss.

Those thresholds are not formalities. A court can dismiss a proceeding at an early stage if serious harm, or serious financial loss, is not established. Western Australia and the Northern Territory have not enacted the Stage 1 reforms, so the position there needs to be checked separately before anyone assumes the same rules apply.

In jurisdictions that have adopted those reforms, a concerns notice must be served before proceedings are commenced. The notice has to identify the matter complained of, the imputations relied on, and the serious harm alleged. There are limited circumstances in which a court can grant leave to proceed without one.

Timing matters as well. A defamation claim generally has to be brought within one year of publication, and a court has a discretion to extend that to three years. The single publication rule means the clock generally runs from the first publication by that publisher, not from every later download. Understanding the defamation limitation period before you send anything is worth an hour of your time.

Defences are the other half of the picture. A reviewer who can prove their statements are substantially true has a defence, and a post containing several claims is read as a whole. That is where the contextual truth defence can change the outcome.

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct: The Pathway Corporations Can Use

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law prohibits conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. It is not limited to consumers, and there is no equivalent of the corporate standing bar or the serious harm threshold.

That makes it an attractive option for a business facing a fake review. It also comes with its own limit, which is the phrase "in trade or commerce".

  • A competitor posting false negative reviews about your business is likely to be engaging in conduct in trade or commerce. That is squarely what section 18 targets.
  • A former customer posting about their own genuine, if disputed, experience usually is not. Reviews of a person's own dealings sit outside the section, even when they feel unfair.
  • A review that is entirely fabricated, or part of a pattern of reviews from accounts created around the same time, tends to point towards a commercial motive and therefore towards section 18.

Available remedies include injunctions, orders for compensation, and orders requiring correction. Pecuniary penalties for a breach of section 18 can only be pursued by the ACCC or ASIC, not by a private claimant.

Injurious Falsehood: The Older, Harder Path

Injurious falsehood is a common law tort aimed at false statements about a person's goods or business. A claimant generally has to establish a false statement of fact, publication to a third party, malice, and actual loss. The High Court has confirmed that actual damage is the gist of the action (Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons [2001] HCA 69).

Malice is the element most claims fail on. It means the publisher knew the statement was false, was reckless about whether it was true, or was motivated by ill will. Proving what was in someone's head is difficult, and the loss has to be shown with evidence rather than assumed from a quiet month of trade.

How to Remove Bad Google Reviews Legally

Before any claim is issued, there is usually a quicker step. Google removes reviews that breach its own policies, including fake engagement, spam, off-topic content, and reviews posted as a result of a conflict of interest. Reporting a review on those grounds costs nothing and is worth doing first. Google's guide to removing reviews sets out the categories it will act on.

Where a report fails and the content is clearly unlawful, a concerns notice or a court application can follow. Courts in jurisdictions that have adopted the Stage 2 digital intermediary reforms can make orders directed at non-party digital intermediaries, requiring steps such as removing or restricting access to the material. Victoria commenced those reforms on 11 September 2024, New South Wales and the ACT on 1 July 2024, and South Australia has enacted only parts of them. Whether a takedown order is available depends on the jurisdiction and on the role the particular platform played. Background on platform liability and law reform helps explain why the rules differ from state to state, and why the High Court's decisions in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27 and Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27 prompted change.

If you are trying to work out who is behind a review, be careful about how you gather that evidence. Recording a conversation without telling the other person carries legal risk of its own, as our article on secret recordings explains.

Matching the Claim to the Facts

In broad terms:

  • An individual who is named and personally attacked: defamation is likely to be the strongest fit, provided serious harm can be shown.
  • A small or not-for-profit business that meets the excluded corporation test: defamation may be available, but serious financial loss has to be proved.
  • A larger company facing fabricated competitor reviews: misleading and deceptive conduct under section 18 is usually the more practical route.
  • A business that can show a competitor lied and can point to specific lost contracts: injurious falsehood may add something, particularly where damages are sought.
  • A consumer or former employee with a genuine grievance: often nothing more than a platform report, unless the content crosses into threats or harassment.

These categories overlap. One set of facts can support more than one claim, and the choice affects what you have to prove, what you can recover, and how long the matter takes.

What to Do First

  1. Preserve the review. Take screenshots showing the URL, the date, and the reviewer's profile name. Do not edit them.
  2. Check whether the same account, or accounts created around the same time, has left similar reviews about you or your competitors.
  3. Report the review to Google under its content policies before doing anything else.
  4. Do not respond publicly with allegations of your own. That can create a separate claim against you.
  5. Get advice on which cause of action fits before you send correspondence. The wrong letter can cost you time and weaken your position.

Damages for non-economic loss in defamation are capped, with the cap adjusted each year. Economic loss has to be proved with evidence. Misleading and deceptive conduct claims are not subject to the same cap, but loss still has to be shown.

This is general information only, not legal advice. You should obtain independent legal advice about your specific circumstances.