Decision of the Koblenz Regional Court on Online Reviews of a Doctor
Background and Subject Matter of the Examination
In case 3 O 46/23, the Koblenz Regional Court dealt with the admissibility of an online review that portrayed a doctor in a negative light. The subject of the proceedings was whether such a review violates the rights of the affected doctor or is covered by the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
Core Content of the Review
In the review portal, a user commented critically on the treatment quality of a doctor, questioning, among other things, the doctor’s professional competence and behavior. These statements were based on the user’s individual perception during the treatment. However, the review author did not make any objectively verifiable factual assertions, but rather described personal impressions and subjective evaluations.
Legal Assessment of the Statements
The court differentiated between opinions and factual assertions. The legal assessment was determined by whether the critical statements were shaped by factual reporting elements or predominantly by opinions. The Regional Court concluded that the challenged statements by the user were essentially of an evaluative nature. Consequently, they were subject to the special protection of freedom of expression according to Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law.
The court also examined whether the review constituted abusive criticism or a formal insult or unlawfully violated the doctor’s personal rights. In this case, neither abusive criticism nor an overstepping of permissible expression of opinion was found. The review was influenced by the user’s experience and remained within the legally permissible framework.
Result and Implications
The Regional Court dismissed the doctor’s suit to have the review removed. The decision emphasizes that the admissibility of online reviews involves a careful balance between the personal rights of the reviewed party and the right to free expression of opinion. Review owners must also tolerate critical statements, provided they do not contain false facts or defamatory elements. In ongoing proceedings, the presumption of innocence must be observed; in the decided case, the court referred to the specific factual situation (Source: https://urteile.news/LG-Koblenz_3-O-4623_Negative-Online-Bewertung-eines-Arztes~N34248).
Conclusion
The decision of the Koblenz Regional Court clarifies the legal requirements for online reviews and their constitutional limits. For questions regarding the legal assessment of online reviews – particularly concerning the balance between personal rights and freedom of expression – it is advisable to seek expert advice. MTR Legal Attorneys provide comprehensive support in the field of IT Law Consultancy and accompany companies, investors, and wealthy private individuals in all matters of digital legal transactions.
