Practice Area

Defamation Law

Removal of false reviews, protection against defamation and insult, and enforcement of your right to reply.

Services at a Glance

checkEnforcement of personality rights in the digital sphere
checkIntermediary liability of platform operators (Google, Meta, Jameda and others)
checkDirect liability of authors of unlawful content
checkReputation protection and legal crisis support
checkRemoval from search results and AI systems (Art. 17 GDPR)
checkDisclosure claims to identify anonymous authors

Personality rights and digital statements

Review platforms, social media and search results have become primary channels for reputation-damaging content. A statement is unlawful in particular where it contains false factual claims, crosses the threshold to insult (Schmähkritik), was made by persons who had no prior dealings with the person concerned, or contains abusive or criminal content.

Pure expressions of opinion are constitutionally protected and must generally be tolerated. The distinction between a permissible value judgement and an impermissible statement of fact is typically the decisive question.

Intermediary liability and direct liability

Platform operators are liable under the principles of intermediary liability (Störerhaftung) once a specific infringement has been brought to their attention and they fail to respond appropriately. The mere referral to the author without requiring substantiated evidence does not satisfy the platform's duty of review (BGH VI ZR 34/15; VI ZR 1244/20). Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), large platform operators are additionally subject to enhanced response and transparency obligations.

Against the author of an unlawful statement, a claim for injunctive relief and removal arises under §§ 823(1), 1004 BGB in conjunction with Art. 2(1), 1(1) of the Basic Law (GG). Where the statement contains false factual claims, a retraction claim may also arise. Where the author is anonymous, their identity can be compelled through a disclosure claim against the platform under § 21 TTDSG.

Removal from search results and AI systems

Unlawful content does not only spread through its original platform, but is further disseminated through Google search results and increasingly through AI-powered response systems. Against the indexing and display of false or personality-right-infringing information by Google, independent removal claims can be asserted under Art. 17 GDPR and the general right of personality. The same applies to the incorporation of unlawful content by AI systems.

Reputation management in crisis

Coordinated attacks on online reputation, whether through organised review campaigns, viral dissemination of defamatory content or targeted false claims, require legal support that goes beyond individual mandates. The focus is on documenting and preserving the content, legally assessing individual actionable statements, and prioritised enforcement against the relevant platforms. Where identifiable authors are involved, injunction and disclosure claims are pursued in parallel.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I have a negative Google review deleted? expand_more
Not every negative review can be deleted – only those that are unlawful. A review containing false factual claims, written by someone who was never your customer, or that constitutes insult (Schmähkritik) can be removed. Legitimate criticism, however harsh, is protected. Each review is assessed individually and, where removable, a legally substantiated request is submitted to Google. Where Google does not act, removal is pursued through the courts.
What is the difference between defamation and insult in German law? expand_more
Insult (Beleidigung, § 185 StGB) refers to an attack on a person's honour through a contemptuous statement, even if no false fact is asserted. Defamation (Verleumdung, § 187 StGB) requires the deliberate assertion or dissemination of a false fact known to be untrue. Slander (üble Nachrede, § 186 StGB) is the assertion of a fact that cannot be proven true. All three are criminal offences and also give rise to civil claims.
How quickly can an injunction be obtained? expand_more
Out-of-court proceedings against platforms should be initiated promptly, as content must be secured and time limits observed. In appropriate cases, court proceedings may also be pursued.
Is it worth filing a criminal complaint for online insults? expand_more
A criminal complaint (Strafanzeige) can be an effective tool, particularly where the perpetrator is anonymous – criminal proceedings allow investigators to subpoena platform data to identify the author. However, criminal proceedings are slow and the outcome is uncertain. In most cases, civil remedies (injunction, damages) are recommended in parallel, as these are faster and directly address the harmful content.
Can a competitor's negative review campaign be stopped? expand_more
Yes. Coordinated negative reviews from non-customers, whether from a competitor or a disgruntled former business partner, are unlawful under both defamation law and competition law (UWG). These cases are pursued on multiple fronts: removal requests to the platforms, injunctions against the organiser of the campaign, and damages claims for lost business. Where the identity of the reviewer is unknown, disclosure orders from the platform can be sought in appropriate cases.
Can content be removed from Google search results? expand_more
Yes. Claims for removal can be asserted against the display of unlawful, outdated or false information in Google search results under Art. 17 GDPR and the general right of personality (allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht). This increasingly extends to responses generated by AI-powered systems that draw on unlawful source content.
What can be done in a coordinated review attack? expand_more
The individual statements are first assessed legally: which are actionable as false factual claims or insults, and which must be accepted as protected opinions? On that basis, prioritised removal requests are submitted to the platforms concerned.
What remedies are available if a platform fails to remove an unlawful review after notification? expand_more
Under BGH case law (VI ZR 34/15; VI ZR 1244/20), a platform is required to examine substantiated complaints and request evidence from the reviewer. If it fails to do so, it is liable as an indirect infringer for injunctive relief. Proceedings can be brought against Google Ireland Ltd. before German courts.
Can content be removed from Google search results and AI systems? expand_more
Claims for removal of unlawful or false content indexed by Google can be asserted under Art. 17 GDPR and the general right of personality. The question increasingly arises for AI-powered response systems drawing on unlawful content. The legal basis for removal claims against AI systems is currently being developed in case law.

Contact

Defamation Law Enquiry

Briefly describe your matter and include a callback number. You will hear back the same business day in most cases.

location_onFriedrichstr. 94, 10117 Berlin
phone+49 (0)30 609 853 700
mailinfo@metzler-legal.de

Also available directly

open_in_newTrademark registration at a fixed price