Online Reviews and the Burden of Proof for Factual Claims
Reviews on online portals hold significant importance for businesses as they can directly influence the trust of potential customers and business partners. However, the right to free expression is not without limits. Recent court decisions highlight that the author of a review based on factual claims must substantiate them in case of a dispute. This is confirmed by a recent ruling from the Regional Court of Frankenthal (Pfalz) on 12.07.2023 (Case No: 6 O 18/23), which outlines essential legal principles for the tension between freedom of expression and personal rights.
Key Distinction: Opinion Versus Factual Statement
Opinions: Protection by the Basic Law
The fundamental right to freedom of expression (Art. 5 para. 1 GG) protects every subjective assessment that is shaped by the individual’s perspective of the reviewer. Such opinions do not require proof as long as they do not cross the line into defamatory criticism or formal insults. Typical examples are phrases like “I didn’t like the service,” or “I found the waiting time unreasonable.” These statements are permissible within a broad framework as long as they don’t imply false facts.
Factual Claims: Need for Evidence and Limits
To distinguish from subjective opinions are factual claims: These involve concrete information about events or conditions that can be proven by objective means. In the realm of online reviews, careful differentiation is often required, especially when the reviewer makes serious allegations—such as faulty services or inappropriate behavior. Such statements are only permissible if they are truthful and provable.
The burden of proof for the truth lies with the reviewer. In a legal proceeding, they must substantiate and prove the truthfulness of the contested factual claim. If this fails, an injunction can be issued.
Ruling of the Regional Court of Frankenthal: Relevant Legal Principles
Case Details
In the case decided by the Regional Court of Frankenthal, a patient reviewed a medical facility on a portal claiming the treatment in question had not taken place at all. The facility operator contested this statement as false and requested the deletion of the review.
Judicial Standards and Reasons for the Decision
The court clearly stated that the claim in question is to be classified as a factual statement, and its accuracy must be proven. Since the reviewer failed to provide such proof, the Regional Court affirmed an injunction claim in favor of the plaintiff.
The ruling emphasizes that while review portals serve to protect freedom of expression, an increased responsibility of the author exists for factual claims. Companies and individuals should not be defenseless against incorrect claims. This is particularly important as negative online reviews can have significant economic implications.
Implications for Practice
The ruling underscores the legal position of companies regarding false reviews and represents an additional building block for protecting their business reputation. Simultaneously, the decision warns of the need for careful differentiation when formulating reviews: Anyone asserting a concrete fact must be able to legally substantiate it in case of dispute.
Balancing Personal Rights and Communicative Freedom
Requirements for Suspicions
Particularly in the context of so-called suspicion reporting or reviews with a mixed factual and evaluative content, special caution is required. Suspicion statements that cannot be supported by verifiable facts are deemed legally inadmissible; the reviewer must demonstrate in individual cases that they have the relevant background experience and were able to justify the expressed suspicion.
Protective Mechanisms for Affected Companies
Companies are advised to systematically monitor relevant review portals. Swiftly initiated injunctive proceedings can not only protect the company image in the case of false factual claims but also prevent further personal rights violations in a preventive manner.
This ensures that the freedom of communication on the Internet does not become a blank check for false accusations, while also maintaining the permitted expressions of opinion.
Conclusion and Further Questions
The decision of the Regional Court of Frankenthal highlights the differentiated legal foundations for online reviews: While subjective opinions are largely protected, factual claims always require special diligence and proof requirements. The correct classification and approach largely depend on the individual case and may particularly require legal expertise in IT law for complex matters.
Companies, investors, and wealthy private individuals facing issues around reviews, portal liability, or the protection of their economic reputation often face challenging legal hurdles. For a tailored legal approach, it’s recommended to seek qualifiedlegal advice in IT law, such as that offered by MTR Legal Attorneys at an international level.
