In Lento Law Group, PC v. Hendrickson, A-3541-23, a published decision issued on June 15, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division interpreted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61. It is New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, enacted in 2023, which allows individuals sued for defamation to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits intended to stifle protected speech. Chief Judge Sumners, writing for a panel that included Judges Chase and Augostini, addressed two questions. First, he considered whether a judge handling a UPEPA case must use the summary judgment standard from Rule 4:46 or the motion-to-dismiss standard from Rule 4:6-2(e). Second, he evaluated whether a former client’s one-star online review of a law firm’s billing practices was actionable defamation. The Court concluded that UPEPA’s plain language supports the use of the Rule 4:6-2(e) standard. It also ruled that the review was a non-actionable opinion on a public issue, thus affirming the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
By way of background, Defendant Carly Hendrickson paid Lento Law Group a $5,000 retainer. After her case settled quickly, she requested a partial refund, which the firm denied under its nonrefundable-fee policy. She then posted a one-star review on the Better Business Bureau, labeling the firm a “total rip off” and suggesting that potential clients who expect to settle should choose a different firm that does not require a full retainer. Lento Law filed suit in March 2024 for defamation and tortious interference. Hendrickson countered with a motion to dismiss and sought fees under UPEPA. The motion judge dismissed both claims, awarded her $24,198 in attorney’s fees and $199.83 in costs, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Lento Law only appealed the defamation dismissal. Of note, the ACLU of New Jersey and a coalition led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press participated as amici for Hendrickson.
On the procedural issue, Lento Law argued that the judge should have used the Rule 4:46 summary judgment standard instead of the Rule 4:6-2(e) failure-to-state-a-claim standard. Lento Law claimed the Act was not intended to remove the jury’s role in deciding defamation defenses at the pleading stage. The Appellate Division disagreed, stating that N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-55(a)(3) allows for dismissal under either the summary judgment or motion-to-dismiss standards, citing Town of Dover v. Gonzalez, No. A-0047-25, 2026 WL 1532353 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 21, 2026). The Appellate Division chose not to follow the out-of-state, unpublished cases that Lento Law referenced, reaffirming that meritless defamation suits within UPEPA’s framework can be addressed at the pleading stage, before any discovery occurs.
The Appellate Division found no disagreement that UPEPA applied since the post discussed a public issue. The main question was whether the post was defamatory. After evaluating the content, verifiability, and context of the statement based on Ward, the Appellate Court determined that the phrase “total rip off” and related comments were loose, figurative, and exaggerated language representing mere opinion. Hendrickson did not accuse the firm of any illegal conduct such as fraud, and her comments stemmed from her dissatisfaction with the nonrefundable retainer policy. Moreover, the remarks were intended to inform the public rather than solely to advance her own interests, so the complaint did not meet the first requirement for defamation. Additionally, the Appellate Division noted that Lento Law could not prove actual malice because the complaint did not provide specific facts showing that Hendrickson knew her statements were false or seriously doubted their truth. Accordingly, the dismissal was confirmed with prejudice.
Moving forward, Lento Law Group clarifies that a UPEPA case can be decided using the Rule 4:6-2(e) motion-to-dismiss standard. Therefore, a plaintiff cannot insist on the more lenient summary judgment standard. Further, online consumer and professional reviews are viewed as speech on a public matter, akin to discourse in the public square. Strongly worded expressions of dissatisfaction are usually seen as non-actionable opinions unless they imply false underlying facts or accuse the subject of illegal behavior. A winning movant may recover reasonable fees and costs under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-58, and the $24,198 award in this case demonstrates its significant deterrent effect. Overall, businesses and professionals unhappy with online reviews should carefully consider UPEPA exposure before taking legal action. If they decide to proceed, they should specifically plead actual malice, as vague accusations will not hold up at the pleading stage.
The Lento Law Group decision is available here. For additional questions, please contact Robert J. Cahall, Esquire and/or Igor Konstankevich, Esquire.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved.