The operator of a review portal may be liable as an indirect interferer if it reviews documents proving a disputed business contact exclusively itself and does not make them accessible to the reviewed company. This may also apply where personal data must first be anonymised. This follows from the decision of the OLG Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main) dated 31 August 2026 – 16 W 40/26 (case no. 16 W 40/26). The decision is not subject to appeal.
Pseudonymous review prompted request for deletion
The proceedings arose from a company review submitted under a pseudonym. It stated (translated in substance): “no recommendation!!!!! Caution, I warn against this company; a criminal complaint has been filed and a lawyer has been instructed”.
The claimant denied that any business contact had existed between it and the reviewer. It therefore demanded that the defendant portal operator delete the review.
Business contact was not substantiated until the proceedings
The portal operator contacted the reviewer and received documents substantiating a business contact. However, it did not provide these documents to the claimant. Instead, it merely stated that its own review had confirmed the business contact.
It was only during the court proceedings that the defendant provided the claimant with the relevant evidence. Both parties subsequently declared by mutual agreement that the dispute had been resolved. The only remaining issue was which party had to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Prospects of success when the action was filed were decisive
In its judgment dated 29 July 2026 – 2-03 O 53/26 (case no. 2-03 O 53/26), the LG Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main) had ordered the portal operator to bear the costs. The OLG Frankfurt am Main upheld this assessment.
The costs decision depended on whether, based on the facts and state of the dispute at the time the action was filed, the action would probably have succeeded. In the OLG’s view, the claimant would at that time have had a claim for injunctive relief against the portal operator due to a breach of its duties to investigate and take appropriate action.
Duties to investigate arise following a specific notification
No general monitoring required before publication
According to the decision, portal operators are under no general obligation to examine all user-generated content for potential infringements before it is published. However, liability as an indirect interferer may arise as soon as the operator obtains specific knowledge of an obvious infringement that can readily be established.
The claimant had expressly stated that it had not had any business contact with the reviewer. As the review had been published under a pseudonym, the claimant itself was unable to conduct any further investigation into the person’s identity or a possible business transaction.
In the court’s assessment, a negative company review that is not based on any underlying business contact infringes the corporate personality rights of the company concerned.
Internal review is no substitute for the company’s own assessment
Contacting the reviewer, as the defendant had done, was not sufficient. Although the portal operator had documents indicating that a business contact had taken place, it did not forward those documents to the claimant. The company was therefore unable to assess their contents itself and substantiate its complaint in greater detail.
In the summary assessment of the prospects of success relevant to the costs decision, the OLG considered the failure to disclose the documents to constitute a breach of duty by the defendant portal operator; this did not amount to a final determination of liability. A reviewed company must not be denied the opportunity to conduct its own assessment merely because the operator evaluates the documents internally and then communicates a positive outcome of its review.
The requirements arising from the decision can be summarised as follows:
-
No general prior review of all reviews is required.
-
A specific notification that no business contact existed may trigger duties to investigate and take appropriate action.
-
Evidence submitted by the reviewer must not be assessed exclusively internally.
-
The relevant documents must be made accessible to the company concerned, in anonymised form where appropriate.
-
Disclosure made only during the proceedings may have no effect on the assessment of the action’s original prospects of success and, consequently, on the allocation of costs.
Subsequent evidence did not alter the costs decision
Based on the facts and state of the dispute when the action was filed, the portal operator would have been required to delete the review. For the purposes of the costs decision, the fact that the business contact was not substantiated until the proceedings did not alter this conclusion.
The defendant therefore had to bear the costs of the proceedings even though the business contact was subsequently substantiated. The decisive issue was not merely whether relevant documents existed, but also whether the claimant had been able to conduct its own assessment before commencing the proceedings.
Significance for companies and review portals
The decision makes clear that several aspects must be considered separately when handling complaints about online reviews. In addition to internally verifying the alleged business contact, it is also relevant whether the decisive evidence has been made accessible to the reviewed company. Any necessary anonymisation may be taken into account.
Where a review is published under a pseudonym, a company is not required to establish the reviewer’s identity itself before objecting that no business contact existed. At the same time, portal operators may face a costs risk if decisive documents are not disclosed until after an action has been filed.
Questions concerning the responsibility of platform operators, the investigation of online reviews and the protection of affected companies regularly involve complex aspects of IT law. In this context, MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies and other affected parties as part of its IT law advisory services.
