Today, Google reviews have a significant influence on the public perception of companies, law firms and freelancers. For many potential customers, they are the first source of information, form an impression even before the first personal contact and form a decisive basis for decision-making. Negative reviews can therefore have a considerable economic impact. This is particularly problematic when reviews are not based on actual experience, contain inaccurate facts or constitute personal attacks. In such cases, the question regularly arises as to the conditions under which Google reviews are unlawful, the legal basis for a claim for deletion and how this can be enforced against Google.
The legal situation: freedom of expression vs. personal rights
The legal assessment is caught between the evaluator’s freedom of opinion, which is protected by Article 5 (1) of the German Basic Law, and the resulting freedom of public communication on the one hand, and the evaluated party’s entrepreneurial right of personality in the form of its economic reputation protection on the other. While rating portals are generally socially desirable and serve the public’s interest in information, their protection ends where the boundary to infringement is crossed.
Corporate personality rights are recognized as other rights within the meaning of Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) and protect a company’s claim to social prestige in business dealings. Negative reviews must therefore always be assessed on the basis of a balance of interests and interests, in which freedom of expression and personal rights must be weighed up. The decisive factor is not the subjective feelings of the person concerned, but the objective legal classification of the statement.
Differentiation between expression of opinion and statement of fact
The legal qualification of the evaluation content determines its admissibility. From a legal perspective, a distinction must first be made between statements of opinion and statements of fact. According to the established case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, opinions are characterized by an element of statement, support or opinion. They are characterized by subjective evaluations, feelings and personal assessments; it is not possible to objectively verify their accuracy. Opinions are fundamentally protected, even if they are exaggerated, polemical or emotionally formulated.
Factual allegations, on the other hand, are statements about specific events or conditions in the past or present, the accuracy of which can be objectively determined. These include, for example, statements about allegedly faulty services, failure to provide advice, failure to meet deadlines or unlawful conduct.
However, according to the established case law of the Federal Court of Justice, the protection of freedom of expression regularly ends where deliberately or proven false facts are disseminated. The so-called factual core of the statement is always decisive. If a Google review contains inaccurate information, it is unlawful – even if it also contains evaluative elements.
Reviews without actual customer experience
Reviews without actual customer experience represent a particularly relevant group of cases in practice. From the perspective of the average user, Google reviews regularly convey the impression that the author has used the rated service themselves. This reference to experience is the basis for the credibility of star ratings.
If such personal experience is completely lacking, the underlying factual core is incorrect. Case law increasingly sees this as an unlawful infringement of the company’s right to privacy. A star rating always represents a judgment of performance; without real performance, the rating lacks a factual basis. Ratings by mere third parties, former applicants or uninvolved persons are therefore inadmissible unless the lack of contact is expressly disclosed.
Abusive criticism and insults in Google reviews
Expressions of opinion are also subject to legal restrictions. In addition to untrue statements of fact, Google reviews can also be unlawful if they cross the line into defamatory criticism. According to established case law, abusive criticism exists if the focus is no longer on a factual discussion of a service, but on defamation of the person or company concerned. In these cases, freedom of expression takes a back seat.
However, the Federal Court of Justice regularly emphasizes that defamatory criticism can only be assumed in very limited exceptional cases. If the company being evaluated or a person associated with it is exclusively disparaged, insulted or generally defamed with the statement made, there is no communication concern worthy of protection. The same applies to formal insults, which are always inadmissible regardless of actual customer contact.
Data protection limits of Google reviews
In addition to civil law, data protection law is increasingly playing a central role in assessing the permissibility of a review. If names of employees are mentioned in publicly accessible review texts, internal processes are described or persons are made identifiable, there is regularly no justification under Art. 6 GDPR. In these cases, there is a right to erasure under Art. 17 GDPR, unless, in exceptional cases, there are overriding interests in freedom of expression. Particularly in the case of identifying information, case law often affirms that data protection interests prevail, as the publication of such information is regularly not necessary in order to write a factual review.
Legal basis for removal
The right to the deletion of unlawful reviews is protected by civil law. Legally, it is primarily based on Sections 823 and 1004 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with the general or corporate right of personality. These bases for claims grant both a right to removal and a right to injunctive relief against continued impairment.
In addition, there may be a right to erasure under data protection law pursuant to Art. 17 GDPR if personal data is affected. In legal practice, both bases for claims are often asserted cumulatively.
Notice-and-takedown procedure
In practice, the enforcement of the deletion claim is usually first made against Google itself as part of a so-called notice-and-takedown procedure. As a platform operator, Google is not automatically liable for third-party content and is generally not obliged to preventively monitor all content. Liability only arises from positive knowledge of a specific infringement.
A mere notification via the standard function is generally not sufficient for Google to be subject to review obligations. Rather, a substantiated complaint (“notice”) is required, which clearly states which specific statement is being challenged, why it is unlawful and on what factual basis the complaint is based. Only such a legally substantiated statement obliges Google to examine the content of the process. This review process includes forwarding the complaint to the author of the review, obtaining a statement and an independent legal assessment of the content. The platform operator is obliged to assess the information provided by both parties and may not limit itself to a purely formal review. If the reviewer is unable to substantiate their factual claims or fails to respond, the unlawfulness must be assumed in favor of the person concerned and the review must be deleted (“takedown”).
Practical note
In legal practice, it has been shown that numerous attempts to delete content do not fail due to the material legal situation, but due to insufficient legal substantiation. Generalized complaints about “damage to reputation” or “unfair reviews” do not trigger an obligation to check. Only a legally structured presentation that names specific text passages, justifies their unlawfulness and is supported by suitable evidence obliges Google to take action.
An expert legal examination is therefore regularly decisive for success. It enables a precise distinction to be made between a permissible expression of opinion and an inadmissible factual claim, an appropriate selection of the basis for the claim and a structured legal argument that meets the requirements of case law. In many cases, a letter from a lawyer leads to an out-of-court deletion of the review.
Conclusion
Google ratings are not outside the legal system. German constitutional, civil and data protection law set clear legal limits on the public evaluation of economic services. If untrue facts are claimed, ratings are given without actual customer experience, personal defamation is spread or personal data is processed without a legal basis, the protection of freedom of expression ends and enforceable claims of the person concerned arise. The decisive factor here is always a careful legal classification of the specific content of the review, taking into account the relevant supreme court rulings.
Those who do not leave unlawful reviews to chance, but have them checked in a legally structured manner and asserted in a well-founded manner, have effective instruments at their disposal to protect their business reputation. An expert analysis of the illegality and precise substantiation vis-à-vis platform operators such as Google significantly increase the chances of success – both in out-of-court review proceedings and in the context of judicial enforcement. In this way, a good reputation can not only be defended, but also secured in the long term.
