Archiv für die Kategorie: Allgemein

Factual claims are provable. They give a statement about objective circumstances in reality. A factual claim is therefore either true or false. It does not contain any personal (subjective) assessment (e.g. BGH ruling of 22 September 2009 – VI ZR 19/08). Untrue Google reviews are prohibited and must be deleted. The omission of important details is also considered an untruth.

It is irrelevant whether the false Google claim

• is a lie (deliberately untrue review) or
• has been made unintentionally out of carelessness or by mistake (unintentionally untrue statement).

An untrue review on Google must always be removed. Deliberately untrue factual claims have greater consequences for the reviewer: they are punishable (defamation pursuant to Section 187 StGB or slander pursuant to Section 186 StGB). Under certain circumstances, a review portal can be forced to hand over the reviewer’s data so that legal action can be taken against them.

Expressions of opinion cannot be proven. They contain a personal (subjective) evaluation by the author of a negative Google review. An opinion therefore cannot be true or false. It is thus not objectively verifiable but rather reflects an attitude towards a situation. To check whether a statement is an expression of opinion, check whether it can be categorised as “I think it is good” or “I think it is not good”; if so, it is an expression of opinion. Opinions are forbidden in individual cases and are deleted if they cross the line and become “abusive criticism”. In this case, an expression of opinion is not covered by freedom of expression in accordance with Article 5 GG.

Opinion that is abusive criticism should be removed

An opinion constitutes prohibited abusive criticism and should be removed if

• it primarily defames the person being reviewed and
• there is no objective discussion of the situation (refer to Resolution of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) of 26 June 1990, Ref. 1 BvR 1165/89 = BVerfGE 82, 272).

It can even be punishable as an insult pursuant to Section 185 StGB if the statement was made deliberately, strongly attacks the honour of the person being reviewed and strongly demeans the person being reviewed.

An opinion must be based on an actual fact or event. For example, if a reviewer has never bought goods from a company or been a patient at a practice, they cannot form an opinion on the matter and therefore cannot express an opinion. Accordingly, an opinion without factual basis is prohibited. It must be deleted, because you do not have to accept such a review if the reviewer has never been your customer, client or patient.

According to the Hamburg Regional Court, the same applies if someone gives a one-star rating on Google without comment (Hamburg Regional Court ruling of 12/01/2018 (Ref. 324 O 63/17)). A one-star rating expresses the author’s negative opinion. At the same time, the lack of comment gives reason for doubt about the customer’s character. In accordance with this case law, Google is obliged to carry out a review of the customer characteristics of the person making the assessment. The same applies to ratings with two stars. From a three-star rating upwards, there must be a negative accompanying text in the form of an insulting (or untrue) review.

Opinions and facts can also be mixed. These cannot be proven. If an expression of opinion contains an assertion that presupposes an intrinsic fact, it may be prohibited. Indirect assertion of facts through expression of opinion is prohibited. It is not always easy to know whether a statement represents an opinion or a factual claim. The overall context of the author’s review is relevant (BGH ruling of 22 September 2009 – VI ZR 19/08). If the indirect factual claim forms the core of the review, it must be removed.