Companies have to accept criticism — but not every review. False statements of fact, abusive criticism, and reviews without any actual business contact are not covered by freedom of expression and can be removed.
Companies have to accept criticism — but not every review. False statements of fact, abusive criticism, and reviews without any actual business contact are not covered by freedom of expression and can be removed.
Clience.Legal examines reviews on Google and Kununu, handles the removal process with the platform, and enforces claims if the process does not succeed.
Table of Contents
Today, reviews are the first point of contact with a company for many purchasing decisions. This applies to customers as well as to applicants, banks, and business partners. A false or malicious review therefore has a direct economic impact — and remains visible as long as it stays online.
At the same time, not every negative review is unlawful. Expressions of opinion enjoy broad protection, and a company that takes legal action against every criticism damages its reputation more than the criticism ever could. The real skill therefore lies in drawing the line: where does permissible opinion end, and where does a challengeable claim begin?
Typically challengeable are false statements of fact, reviews without any business contact, abusive criticism with no factual connection, and reviews clearly posted by competitors or former employees for improper purposes. These are exactly the cases we challenge.
It all starts with documentation: a screenshot with the date, the author’s profile, the context and — if available — evidence that no business contact ever took place. This evidence determines whether the next steps succeed, because platforms base their assessment on what is presented to them.
Next, a complaint is filed with the platform. It usually forwards the complaint to the author and asks them to substantiate the alleged facts. If no substantiated response is received, the review is often removed. If the procedure does not succeed, we examine enforcing injunctive and removal claims in court.
A brief, factual public response that corrects the facts without disclosing internal information is sensible. From a data protection perspective, restraint is required: anyone who publicly confirms that a specific person was a customer is processing personal data.
Buying counter-reviews, having employees contact the author, or public disputes about details of the client or employment relationship are not advisable. Such reactions weaken your position in later proceedings — and usually also public perception.
Book a Consultation
15 to 20 minutes, by phone or video — no obligation — including a free initial assessment.
Table of Contents
Google reviews help decide who calls you.
Kununu reviews from former employees directly influence your recruiting efforts.
Trust is your product — an untrue claim gets to the heart of the matter.
Reviews without an actual purchase distort your overall picture.
Attacks often target the person rather than the company.
Legal classification: expression of opinion, statement of fact, or abusive criticism?
Structured complaint under the respective portal’s procedure, with full reasoning.
Formal legal demand to delete the review and cease and desist, where the author is known.
Court enforcement of injunctive and removal claims.
Internal processes for handling reviews and complaints.
Coordinate with your communications so that the legal response does not become a reputational risk.
Brief introductory conversation, digital and non-binding.
Secure and digital, with no paperwork at all.
Analysis of your situation with clear recommendations.
Efficient, location-independent and personal.
No. Expressions of opinion enjoy broad protection and must generally be tolerated. Challengeable are above all false statements of fact, abusive criticism with no factual connection, and reviews without any actual business contact.
We document the review, file a structured complaint under the platform’s procedure, and explain why it is unlawful. The platform usually asks the author to substantiate the facts.
The procedure is then directed against the platform. Especially with reviews without business contact, the author’s inability to provide proof is often the decisive point.
A factual, concise answer is usually useful. Be careful not to disclose any personal data or internal information — this could have data protection implications.
We bill by time spent at the hourly rate of €350 net per 60 minutes and discuss the expected effort in advance. The initial consultation with an initial assessment is free of charge.
Attorney, Certified Specialist in Commercial and Corporate Law
Darius Dubiel is a Certified Specialist in Commercial and Corporate Law with a particular focus on compliance advisory, restructuring, insolvency law, digitalization and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a corporate context. He specializes in corporate law, legal support for coaches and questions of insolvency and restructuring law. Another focus is representing coaches and educational providers in proceedings concerning the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG), ZFU approval and refund claims by customers.
Please describe your request — we will professionally assess it in the free initial consultation and show you the next steps.
