Note
on deleted
Reviews.
Note
on deleted
Reviews.
from
Is a review site allowed to publish how many of your reviews you have had deleted?
Is the reference to removed reviews considered personal data, and are review sites still not required to delete it? What does this mean for companies that actively take action against negative reviews?
What is it about?
A private practice physician had had between six and ten reviews of his practice removed from a well-known review portal within the twelve months prior to the legal dispute—in each case on the grounds that the reviewer had not actually been a real patient. The portal responded by adding a note to the practice’s profile. This note indicated that a corresponding number of reviews had been removed during that period following complaints. The doctor sought to have this note removed. Both the Cologne Regional Court and the Cologne Higher Regional Court rejected his request.
Why is this note a problem for the doctor in the first place?
Although the notice does not provide any details about the individual reviews, it makes it publicly apparent that the doctor has actively had reviews removed. This can tarnish the impression patients get from his profile, because a good average rating comes across differently when users know that some of the negative reviews have been removed at the doctor’s request. The doctor viewed this as an unauthorized disclosure of his personal data and invoked his right under the law to request the deletion of this information.
Why doesn’t data protection law apply here?
In its ruling, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne finds that Decision of June 12, 2026 – Case No. 15 W 55/26 First, it must be established that the information in question is indeed personal data —that is, it relates to an individual identified by name. However, the law on deleting this information applies only under certain conditions, which the court has ruled do not apply in this case.
The note is factually correct.
The doctor himself did not deny having submitted the complaints in question. The portal refers to such complaints as “defamation” reports and explains in a linked informational text that this also includes cases in which a company disputes that the reviewer was ever a customer at all. The court considers this classification to be reasonable in terms of both language and content.
The portal has good reasons for publishing this.
Users of a review portal have a legitimate interest in knowing how a profile was created. An average rating in which some of the reviews were removed at the request of the company in question conveys a different message than a rating that was arrived at without such interventions. In the court’s view, this interest in information on the part of users outweighs the doctor’s interest in protection.
The number of deleted reviews may be of interest to the reader when assessing the overall picture that emerges from the reviews submitted for a business listing and from the average rating provided, and when making a comparison in this regard with other companies or freelancers—particularly those who, as a rule, never contest reviews concerning them—this information may well be of interest.
What does this mean for affected companies and freelancers?
The court emphasizes that the notice is worded in a factual and restrained manner. It does not appear on the profile page itself, but only when users actively click on the “Reviews” section. The court does not view this as defamatory.
In practice, this means that anyone who actively and repeatedly has reviews deleted from review sites must expect that this very fact will become public knowledge. While filing a deletion complaint remains a legitimate course of action, it is not without consequences for one’s public image.
Conclusion
The court assumes that such notices on review sites are permissible. In reality, however, users will predominantly rate the notice negatively, even if the person being reviewed is lawfully defending themselves against impermissible reviews. As a result, the person defending themselves against impermissible reviews is effectively punished twice.
It is also questionable whether the term “defamation” is sufficiently explained in the linked informational text and is clearly recognizable to users. It is rather doubtful whether the average portal user would actually read this explanatory text before interpreting the notice.
We are happy to
advise you on
Reviews!
