Utah Court of Appeals
Are negative online reviews protected as opinion under Utah law? Spencer v. Glover Explained
Summary
Attorney Terry Spencer sued former client Stephen Glover for defamation based on a negative Yelp review about Spencer’s representation in Glover’s divorce. The district court dismissed the claim under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the review was mere opinion and not actionable defamation.
Analysis
In Spencer v. Glover, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a negative Yelp review about an attorney’s services could support a defamation claim. The case provides important guidance on the boundary between protected opinion and actionable defamation in the digital age.
Background and Facts
Attorney Terry Spencer represented Stephen Glover in divorce proceedings. After Glover became dissatisfied and retained new counsel, he posted a scathing Yelp review calling Spencer the “worst ever” and detailing complaints about Spencer’s billing practices, typing skills, and communication. The review stated Spencer charged $5,000 and was owed more, used “hunt-and-peck” typing, told Glover to “GOOGLEIT!” when asked questions, and that Glover had filed a Utah State Bar complaint. Spencer sued for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with economic relations.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Glover’s online review constituted protected opinion under the Utah Constitution or actionable defamation. The court applied a four-factor test examining: (1) common usage of words, (2) objective verifiability, (3) full context, and (4) broader setting of the statements.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court determined the review was protected opinion. Most statements, including “worst ever,” were not objectively verifiable but expressed Glover’s subjective dissatisfaction. The court noted that Yelp reviews by their nature signal opinion rather than fact to readers. Even statements that could be verified—such as Spencer telling Glover to “google” something or Glover filing a bar complaint—were not defamatory because they would not expose Spencer to “public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.”
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that online business reviews receive strong constitutional protection as opinion. Courts will consider the platform’s nature—like Yelp’s review format—as signaling opinion to readers. For defamation claims to succeed against online reviews, plaintiffs must identify underlying facts that are both false and truly defamatory, not merely critical or embarrassing.
Case Details
Case Name
Spencer v. Glover
Citation
2017 UT App 69
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150892-CA
Date Decided
April 20, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Online reviews posted on Yelp constitute protected expressions of opinion under the Utah Constitution unless they state or imply underlying defamatory facts.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including whether statements are susceptible to defamatory interpretation and whether motion to dismiss was properly granted
Practice Tip
When evaluating defamation claims based on online reviews, carefully analyze whether statements can be objectively verified and consider the context of the platform as signaling opinion rather than fact.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.