In the situation where a food blogger from State A falsely reviews a restaurant in State B, what is the likely decision regarding a motion filed by the restaurant's owner?

The scenario involves a food blogger from one state making a false review about a restaurant in another state, which raises significant defamation issues. The correct choice is rooted in the understanding that a false review can indeed be considered defamatory if it harms the reputation of the restaurant owner.

In this case, the restaurant owner has a solid basis to argue that the review was not just false but also damaging to their business. A defamatory statement, by definition, is one that injures a person's reputation in the eyes of the community. Since the food blogger's statement is alleged to be false, and if it negatively impacted the restaurant's reputation and business, then the restaurant owner would likely succeed in a motion for defamation.

The assertion here is further supported by the legal principle that truth is a defense against defamation, and when the statement is proven false, it strengthens the restaurant's case. Thus, if the restaurant owner can demonstrate that the review was indeed false and caused harm, the motion would be granted.

The other options present reasons for denial or complicate the issue with regards to intent, which, while important, does not diminish the potential for a successful defamation claim under these circumstances.