## Facts

- Mr. Chow of New York operated an upscale Chinese restaurant in New York City.
- Ste. Jour Azur S.A. (a French publisher) released a French-language *Gault/Millau Guide to New York* containing restaurant reviews.
- A journalist wrote a highly critical review of Mr. Chow’s restaurant based on a single meal on December 18, 1980.
- Mr. Chow sued in the Southern District of New York for libel, alleging the review contained false and defamatory statements harming the restaurant’s reputation.
- After a four-day jury trial, the jury found the review libelous and awarded $20,000 compensatory damages and $5 punitive damages.
- The district court denied defendants’ post-trial motion and entered judgment for Mr. Chow.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the challenged statements were non-actionable opinion under the First Amendment and New York law.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenged statements in a restaurant review are protected expressions of opinion or actionable defamatory statements of fact under the First Amendment and New York defamation law.
2. Whether the district court should have resolved the fact/opinion question as a matter of law rather than submitting the case to the jury.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment for Mr. Chow.
- The court held the review, considered in full context, was constitutionally protected opinion and therefore not libelous.
- The court directed entry of judgment for defendants on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation liability requires a false, defamatory statement of fact; expressions of opinion are protected.
- Whether language is fact or opinion is determined by examining the full communication and its broader social setting, including genre, tone, and audience expectations.
- Reviews and criticism of food, service, and similar performance-based matters are typically evaluative judgments not readily susceptible to courtroom proof, and are generally treated as opinion.
- Courts should not isolate phrases from a review; language that may appear factual in isolation can be non-actionable when read as part of an overall critical appraisal.
- Strong First Amendment protection applies to consumer-oriented criticism to avoid chilling commentary and public discussion.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a harsh restaurant review in a dining guide was protected opinion when evaluated in context, reversed the plaintiff’s libel verdict, and ordered judgment for the defendants.


Mr. Chow of N.Y. v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., 759 F.2d 219 (2d Cir. 1985)