When Words Clash: A Roofing Dispute and the Fine Line Between Fact and Opinion

In Kentucky, a recent court case put the spotlight on the tricky line between facts and opinions. It all started with a homeowner, Rusnak, who was unhappy with the work done by Andes Roofing. The homeowner held back payment and shared negative reviews online. Andes Roofing didn't take it lightly. They said the homeowner's words hurt their business and sued for defamation. The homeowner's reviews called the roofing company terrible and its owner a "con man. " The court had to figure out if these were just opinions or actual facts. Opinions are protected by the First Amendment, but facts can be defamatory if they're false.The court explained that opinions can't be proven true or false. So, calling a company "terrible" is just someone's view and not defamatory. But things got tricky with the claim that Andes Roofing deleted negative reviews. This was seen as a factual statement because it could be checked. If true, it's not defamatory. If false, it could be. The court decided that most of the homeowner's statements were opinions and dismissed those claims. However, the claim about deleting reviews needed more investigation. This case shows how courts handle the gray area between facts and opinions. It's not always black and white, and the context matters a lot.