Notice
regarding removed
reviews.
Notice
regarding removed
reviews.
by
Anyone who has fake reviews deleted may soon see a note on their profile indicating that reviews have been removed. Is a review site allowed to make such deletions public and, furthermore, label them as complaints of defamation?
Three Complaints and a Notice
A law firm was listed with a business profile on a review site. According to the firm, three reviews did not come from clients but from people who had never used its services. The firm filed a complaint with the site regarding each review. The operator deleted the three reviews.
After that, a new notice appeared in the profile under the “Reviews” tab. It read, “Two to five reviews removed due to complaints of defamation.” Clicking the “Details” button opened a window with similar text. From there, a link led to a help page with explanations of German law.
The decision does not name the portal operator. However, the headline and introductory sentence of the help page reproduced there match those of the Google Maps help page. According to this help page, Google only counts distances from the last 365 days. The number is always given as a range, such as “six to ten.” Restored reviews are excluded. The notice is not intended to affect the profile’s ranking.
What the law firm sought to achieve
The law firm felt that there had been an infringement on its right to privacy and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction—that is, an emergency court order. The term “defamation” gave the false impression that clients had insulted the firm in their reviews. In fact, the deletion was based solely on the lack of client contact. Furthermore, the statement could raise the suspicion that the firm takes action against critical voices without cause. The operator is not permitted to make such internal matters public.
The Munich Higher Regional Court dismisses the appeal
The Regional Court dismissed the motion. The Munich Higher Regional Court, in its decision of September 21, 2026—Case No. 18 W 839/26 Pre e— upheld this ruling and dismissed the law firm’s immediate appeal. The court examined claims based on the General Data Protection Regulation, the general right of personality, and the Digital Services Act. It rejected all of them. In its view, the Unfair Competition Act was also of no help, even though the law firm had not invoked it at all.
Is the statement about deleted reviews true?
The court considers the statement to be accurate. The law firm itself had objected to three reviews, and the operator subsequently deleted them. The statement “two to five” is therefore correct.
The court also ruled against the law firm regarding the dispute over the term “defamation.” The linked help page explicitly states that a complaint about a lack of client contact also falls under this term. This classification is consistent with common usage. Defamation essentially means disparagement. A negative review without customer contact can be just as disparaging as a review containing false facts.
Legally, the court classifies the statement as an expression of opinion with a true factual basis. Classifying it as defamation is a matter of the operator’s judgment. The core of the statement—that reviews were removed following complaints—is, however, true. Furthermore, an average reader would understand the term as a collective term. The reader would not conclude from this that real customers had insulted the law firm.
Why does the interest in transparency prevail?
In weighing the interests, the court balances the interests of both sides. The operator is permitted to disclose its review and removal practices and to point out potential biases. Users have an interest in authentic reviews. They can compare the number of removals to the total number of reviews or compare multiple providers.
On the other hand, there is the law firm’s interest in not making its actions against reviews public. However, this affects only its professional activities. Anyone operating as a business must accept public scrutiny. The neutral wording is decisive for the court.
The factual note, which becomes visible to the user only when he or she clicks on the “Reviews” tab, contains no criticism of the petitioner’s conduct.
If a reader nevertheless concludes that the company is taking action even against legitimate criticism, that must be accepted. The notice itself does not make such a claim. There is no question of internal business operations. The law firm contacted the portal on its own initiative, and the operator obtained the information lawfully.
Does the Digital Services Act help in this regard?
No. The Digital Services Act—that is, the European regulation on digital services—requires hosting services to implement a reporting and takedown procedure for illegal content. However, in the court’s view, it does not establish a separate right to have content removed. Furthermore, the notice did not come from a user, but from the operator itself. The regulation does not contain a prohibition on informing users about the removal of reported content.
How does this decision fit into the broader context?
The Munich Higher Regional Court is not alone in its ruling. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne, in its ruling of June 12, 2026—Case No. 15 W 55/26 —had already approved a similar notice in the profile of a medical practice. That case involved six to ten removed reviews. This decision was also issued in summary proceedings.
One difference lies in the legal reasoning regarding data protection. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne generally derives a claim for injunctive relief from the right to erasure under Article 17 of the GDPR. The Munich Higher Regional Court expressly leaves this question open. It refers to the ECJ ruling of September 4, 2025—Case No. C-655/23 (Quirin Privatbank). According to that ruling, the GDPR itself does not grant a preventive right to injunctive relief, but does not preclude such a right under national law. How German courts will implement this in the future remains to be seen.
What does this mean for businesses?
According to these two rulings, anyone who disputes reviews on review sites must expect a visible notice to be posted. This also applies to reviews that involve no customer contact. However, it is still possible to dispute a review on the grounds of a lack of customer contact. We have previously reported on how review sites can provide proof of customer contact.
Companies should therefore weigh their options before filing any complaint. A single critical but genuine review may carry less weight than a persistent request for removal. In the case of clearly fake reviews, however, there is a strong case for filing a complaint. It is helpful to clearly document the reasons for each complaint. According to the help page, a deletion is no longer counted after 365 days. A notice that has been posted once is therefore not visible indefinitely.
Conclusion
The Munich Higher Regional Court follows the lead of the Cologne Higher Regional Court and prioritizes transparency for users over the company’s interest in confidentiality. This is good news for platform operators. For companies fighting against fake reviews, it is bad news.
We take a critical view of the classification of the term “defamation.” Anyone who objects to a review on the grounds of a lack of customer contact is, at first, merely claiming not to know the author. A review can be deleted even if the author fails to provide evidence of such contact. The court itself acknowledges this. There are good reasons to doubt whether the average reader actually understands “defamation” as a neutral umbrella term without reading the help page.
Added to this is an imbalance. A company that consistently has fake reviews removed receives a warning. A company that leaves them up goes unnoticed. So far, the courts have only examined—in summary proceedings—whether such a warning actually makes the picture more transparent or creates new distortions. A ruling on the merits of the case, and ultimately by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), is still pending.
We’d be happy to
You are welcome to
Reviews!
