Indeed, a similar case cropped up just this past October when for leaving a negative review on his page. Like in the Yelp instance, the review was posted in an area of the site clearly designated for opinions. The seller just didn't like what it said.

In these sorts of scenarios, Jacobson says the judge is forced to speculate what the writer meant, then consider how an average reader would interpret it within the site's context.

"Courts generally apply a number of factors in evaluating the speech," Jacobson explains. "Opinions are never actionable, but factual assertions that impugn one's reputation, morality, integrity or even ability to competently perform their job can expose the speaker or writer to liability."

These lawsuits, Jacobson believes, can have serious implications when it comes to the practical notion of freedom of speech in the modern world.

"[They] can have the undesired effect of chilling consumers from expressing their opinions online for fear for retaliation in the courts," he says.