Defamation on Review Platforms: Checkatrade, Yelp, Bark.com, and Rated People

Google, Trustpilot, and Amazon each have dedicated articles on this site. But Checkatrade, Yelp, Bark.com, and Rated People are the next tier of review platforms — and for tradespeople, estate agents, and local service businesses, they can be even more damaging. This guide explains the legal options available for each platform.

Why Tier-Two Review Platforms Matter

While Google reviews affect every business, the platforms covered in this guide are sector-specific — which makes their impact more concentrated. A single false review on Checkatrade can rank at the top of search results for a tradesperson's name. A fabricated Bark.com complaint can prevent a service provider winning new leads from the platform entirely. These platforms often carry more credibility with the specific audiences that matter most to the affected business.

Crucially, these platforms have less robust verification and moderation systems than Google or Trustpilot. Reviews are harder to challenge through internal processes, and platform customer service is often unresponsive to defamation complaints. This is exactly where legal intervention is most effective.

Checkatrade: The Tradesperson's Platform

Checkatrade is one of the UK's most prominent directories for tradespeople — plumbers, electricians, builders, and other contractors. Its reviews carry significant weight because Checkatrade markets itself as a vetting service. A false allegation of poor workmanship, unsafe practice, or dishonesty on Checkatrade therefore carries implicit credibility: the reader assumes it has been assessed by the platform.

Checkatrade's internal dispute process exists but is slow and often inconclusive. The platform does not remove reviews simply because you assert they are false — it requires evidence and a process of complaint resolution that can take weeks.

A formal solicitor's letter to Checkatrade's legal department, citing specific provisions of the Defamation Act 2013 and identifying the false statements in the review, is typically far more effective. Where the reviewer is anonymous or uses a pseudonym, a [Norwich Pharmacal Order](/glossary#norwich-pharmacal-order) can require Checkatrade to disclose the identity information it holds for the reviewing account.

Yelp: The UK Position

Yelp is used far more extensively in the US than the UK, but it maintains a presence in the UK market — particularly for restaurants, bars, and service businesses with an American client base or international visitors. A defamatory Yelp review is actionable under UK defamation law if the claimant is based in England or Wales and the content is accessible here.

Yelp's moderation is inconsistent and often ineffective for UK legal complaints. However, Yelp does respond to formal court orders, and a properly framed cease-and-desist letter from a UK solicitor — which identifies the false statement, the legal basis for the claim, and the risk of court proceedings — will often prompt engagement that informal complaints do not.

Where the Yelp reviewer is based in the US, jurisdictional issues arise. UK courts can still grant orders against Yelp as a platform, and many cases resolve through platform action rather than proceedings against the individual reviewer.

Bark.com and Rated People: Lead-Generation Platforms

Bark.com and Rated People are lead-generation platforms where potential clients post service requests and businesses bid for work. Reviews on these platforms have a specific and measurable effect on a business's ability to win leads — a low rating or false allegation can prevent a business appearing in searches entirely.

Both platforms have internal dispute processes that are rarely effective for serious defamatory content. Legal action — or the threat of it — is often the most effective route. Where the reviewer can be identified (which is easier on lead-generation platforms, where accounts are typically tied to genuine client identities), direct legal correspondence to the reviewer demanding removal and retraction can achieve swift results.

The [serious harm](/glossary#serious-harm) threshold is typically satisfied on these platforms where evidence shows that the false review has caused a measurable drop in lead conversion or platform visibility.

Section 5 Notices: A Platform-Specific Tool

Under section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013, a complainant can serve a formal notice on a website operator alleging that user-generated content is defamatory. The operator must then either contact the poster to obtain their consent to identify themselves, or remove the content. Failure to follow the correct procedure means the platform loses its intermediary defence and becomes liable as a publisher.

This mechanism works best for platforms that are actively monitoring their section 5 obligations — and can be a powerful lever even where direct communication with the platform has failed.

Related reading: Defamation on Trustpilot | Google reviews and defamation law | Defamation vs malicious falsehood