Can calling a business 'crooks' in an online review constitute defamation per se? Westmont v. Buttars Explained

In Westmont v. Buttars, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when inflammatory language in online business reviews crosses the line into actionable defamation, providing important guidance for both businesses and consumers in the digital age.

Background and Facts

The case arose from a rental dispute where defendants sought early termination of their lease agreement with Westmont Residential. After signing a notice of intent to vacate, confusion arose about the actual move-out date. Westmont entered the unit early, packed the tenants’ belongings, and charged a $100 fee for the service. Following this dispute, one of the tenants posted an online review describing Westmont as “crooks” and warning others to “run from them.” Westmont sued for damages related to cleaning costs and brought a defamation per se claim based on the online review.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: whether a signed notice of intent to vacate constituted a contract modification that relieved Westmont of certain procedural requirements, and whether calling a business “crooks” in an online review could constitute defamation per se.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Regarding the defamation claim, the court applied contextual analysis to determine whether the challenged statement was capable of sustaining a defamatory meaning. The court emphasized that words must be given their “most common and accepted meaning” in context. Here, in an online consumer review forum, the term “crooks” constituted rhetorical hyperbole rather than a factual assertion of criminal conduct. The court noted that “even the most careless reader would perceive that the word ‘crooks’ was no more than rhetorical hyperbole,” similar to “juvenile name-calling” that cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for defamation litigation involving online reviews. Courts will analyze the context of allegedly defamatory statements, particularly in consumer review settings where hyperbolic language is common. Practitioners should focus on whether statements can reasonably be interpreted as asserting actual facts rather than expressing subjective opinions or frustrations. The decision also reinforces that truth remains a complete defense to defamation claims, as the court noted Westmont’s questionable business practices supported the characterization.