Customer Reviews: Legal Framework and Current Jurisprudence
The digital transformation in the service sector is reflected in the increasing importance of customer reviews on online platforms. These provide end customers the opportunity to publicly share their subjective experiences and significantly influence the reputation of companies. The publication of critical reviews regularly raises complex issues at the intersection of freedom of expression, economic interests, and personality rights.
Against this background, the recent decision of the Lörrach District Court dated 20.10.2023 (Case No. 3 C 560/23) must be examined in detail. It concerns the admissibility of the customer review “Service and cleanliness unsatisfactory,” posted about one year after the last visit to a fitness studio. The dispute between the reviewer and the company touches on several key legal areas, including freedom of expression, competition law, and data protection.
Facts of the Case and Procedural Situation
Background of the Review
The dispute originated from a user opinion publicly accessible on the internet: Specifically, in October 2023, the review “Service and cleanliness unsatisfactory” was published regarding a fitness studio. The fact that the reviewer’s last visit was already about one year prior raised questions about the timeliness and factual relevance of the statement.
Response from the Company
The affected fitness studio requested the removal of the review, arguing that the criticism was outdated and, therefore, unfounded. It was further argued that the review referred to circumstances no longer current and that operational processes had significantly changed during the review period.
Overview of the Judicial Review Framework
The competent court had to assess,
- whether the review, despite the time elapsed, constituted a relevant factual claim at all,
- to what extent the restriction of freedom of expression in favor of the company’s interests would be justified,
- whether there was a violation of the company’s personality rights.
Legal Assessment and Grounds for the Decision
Freedom of Expression versus Factual Claim
The District Court made a nuanced assessment: The statement “Service and cleanliness unsatisfactory” was, by its structure, an evaluation linked to the reviewer’s personal judgment. Nuances like the term “unsatisfactory” clearly indicated that it was not an objective fact but an individual opinion.
Nevertheless, the opinion could be based on personal experiences, even if these were no longer current at the time of publication. The decisive factor was whether the review gave the impression of reflecting current circumstances or was based on past experiences. In the present case, the wording did not allow a clear conclusion about its timeliness; a reasonable reader could assume that personal impressions included elements referring to the past.
Protection of the Company’s Personality Rights
The company’s personality rights fundamentally protect it against media attacks likely to impair its economic or social reputation. However, this protection does not fully yield to the principle of freedom of expression. Instead, a balancing of interests must take place:
The District Court determined that the review never rested on demonstrably untrue factual foundations. Furthermore, no defamatory insults or deliberate disparagement were found. Although one year after the last studio visit the usefulness of the review for potential new members may decrease, constitutionally protected remains the right to share older subjective experiences, provided these do not contain deliberate misleading or knowingly false factual claims.
Relevance of the Passage of Time
An important factor was whether the time elapsed of about one year invalidated the review or justified its inadmissibility. The court argued that the platform explicitly focuses on the experiential values of its members in user communication. A general limitation to current experiences from only a few weeks prior would unjustifiably restrict freedom of communication. More crucial was that the duration and context of the experience remain understandable and it be transparent to the average reader that personal reviews do not necessarily reflect the current state.
Therefore, deletion or prohibition is only permissible in cases of objectively misleading representation or demonstrably false factual core.
Implications for Companies and the Legal System
Significance for Online Reputation Management
The ruling emphasizes the protection mechanisms for individual statements on review platforms – even over an extended period. Companies are required to examine criticism in a nuanced manner and to continue developing both their internal documentation obligations and proactive communication strategies concerning review portals, in order to minimize economic and personal disadvantages.
Persistence of freedom of expression and its limits
Freedom of expression, including its digital form, remains a central pillar of the consumer protection-oriented communication space. Companies can defend themselves against inaccurate, offensive, or knowingly false reviews. Nevertheless, current jurisprudence demands a precise differentiation between subjective criticism and factual assertions, as well as a transparent approach to the temporal classification of reviews.
Impact on IT platforms and compliance
The judgment also underscores the responsibility of operators of digital review platforms. They must establish appropriate verification mechanisms to on the one hand promptly remove unlawful content and on the other hand not unjustifiably restrict permissible critical voices. This includes an ongoing balancing process with regard to data protection, freedom of expression, and entrepreneurial protective interests.
Outlook and legal protection options
The further development of case law on online reviews requires a continuous review of internal corporate reputation management strategies as well as a thorough understanding of the interconnected protected goods. Especially in cross-border issues and international platform use, a differentiated consideration of national legal norms may be necessary.
For more complex legal questions about protection against defamatory reviews or the liability and structuring of review platforms, a tailored analysis is always recommended. Individual concerns – such as in the area of service reviews, platform operator obligations, or data protection implications – can be reliably addressed within the scope of expert legal advice in IT law.
