BGH: Google rating only permissible if actually customer

Time and again, there are legal disputes surrounding Google reviews or those on Yelp, Trusted Shops or on travel portals, etc. In the meantime, however, a large number of decisions have resulted and the claims against the providers of rating portals, but also against the raters themselves, are often very clear.

Key Facts

Legal disputes surrounding Google reviews and other platforms are common.
The BGH ruled on reviews from non-customers on Google.
Reviewers can raise the lack of guest contact as a complaint to review portals.
A justification for the lack of guest contact is generally not required.
Contradictory information on the actual use of the service must be checked.
Identity of the assessor can influence the obligation to give reasons.
Abuse of rights limit applies to ratings and their review.

By the way, at the end of last year the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled on one of the few remaining open questions, namely whether it is permissible to rate someone on Google if you were not actually a customer of the customer – or whether the company then has a claim against Google for the removal of such a rating.

In this regard, the highest German civil court ruled that in the case of a rating portal (here: hotel rating portal), the complaint of the rated party that a rating was not based on any guest contact was sufficient. In principle, this is sufficient to trigger the review obligations of the rating portal. The rated party is generally not obligated to provide further explanations to the rating portal, in particular a more detailed explanation of its claim of a lack of guest contact. This applies not only in the case that the evaluation does not contain any actual information describing the concrete use of the service and therefore a further justification is not possible for the rated party, but also if there is information that speaks for a guest contact. The latter statement is a clarification of the Senate ruling of March 1, 2016 – VI ZR 34/15. This is because the rated party is regularly unable to verify this information and thus cannot reliably determine the alleged guest contact.

A more detailed substantiation of the assertion of the lack of guest contact is only required if the identity of the rater is readily apparent to the rated party from the rating. In addition, the limit of abuse of rights applies.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.