Yeah, good topic.
I don't think it's a secret that the review was done for Griffin Paulin's "Kitchen Banter" website and was about Joella's Hot Chicken.
I read the original review, and I watched Griffin's two videos. That guy might be the second-best restaurant critic in Louisville.
You never know about lawyers, but there are tons of precedents that absolutely nail down not only the reviewer's free-speech right to express negative opinions, and even to do so in colorful, exaggerated language. There was a famous case involving a NYC noodle chef who was savaged in a review - NYT, maybe? - sought actual and punitive damages and was sent away by the court empty-handed.
The only possible wiggle room I could see might be an effort to argue that Griffin's blog is not "real journalism, but I think that's a failure from the get-go. The internet is mature enough now that there's been plenty of time to establish precedent that a journalist is a journalist, whether she works for a major media corporation or a blog.
So, short answer, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Sadly, though, there's also the issue that a litigant with deep pockets and an angry attitude can try to grind down an opponent with a mountain of legal expenses. I hope Tony P wouldn't try to do that.