- The OLG Celle confirmed that anonymity on rating platforms cannot be automatically revoked.
- Companies must demonstrate specific legal grounds for obtaining user data.
- A right to information is only given if there is clear evidence of a criminal offense.
- Illegal content such as defamation or slander must be taken into account.
- Courts maintain a balance between the rights of the evaluators and those affected.
- Companies must prove that reviews are unlawful and unjustified.
- Anonymity on platforms such as Kununu is likely to remain in place until clear legal changes are made.
The issue of anonymity on online review platforms such as Kununu has repeatedly given rise to debate. A recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Celle (OLG Celle, decision of 02.04.2024 – Ref.: 5 W 10/24) brings this discussion back into focus, but with an important clarification: anonymity is not automatically revoked, but requires specific legal grounds. In the case in question, the operator of a company demanded that a review platform hand over the data of a user who had posted a negative review. The plaintiff argued that this was a fake review, as the user had never been employed by the company. In doing so, it invoked an infringement of the law which, in its opinion, justified an exception to the fundamental anonymity of user data. The legal dispute went through several instances and highlights the complexity of this issue.
Legal classification
The court rejected the claim for information and confirmed that the platform does not have to disclose any data unless it is clearly proven that a criminal offense has been committed. The legal basis for this can be found in § 21 TTDSG, which states:
“According to § 21 para. 2 TTDSG, a telemedia provider may, in individual cases, provide information about existing inventory data, insofar as this is necessary for the enforcement of civil law claims due to the violation of absolutely protected rights due to illegal content, which is covered by § 10 a para. 1 TMG or § 1 para. 3 NetzDG is required.”
However, the court emphasizes that unlawful content is content that meets the requirements of Section 1 para. 3 NetzDG fulfill the criminal offenses of the StGB and are not justified. These include, among others, the offenses of defamation or slander. The text of the decision refers to the need for a concrete examination of the allegations made and the high threshold that must be reached to break anonymity. This case law shows how carefully courts maintain the balance between the rights of the evaluators and the rights of those affected. The complex requirements for proving an infringement make it clear that not every unpleasant rating can lead to the removal of anonymity.
Conclusions and outlook
The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Celle makes it clear that anonymity on rating platforms continues to be upheld and that a breach of this anonymity requires substantiated legal grounds. For companies, this means that when pursuing false reviews, they must prove that they are unlawful and unjustified in order to identify the reviewer. This legal situation creates a balance between the protection of user data and the interest of companies in defending themselves against false and harmful reviews. It remains to be seen how future court decisions will further define this balance and whether legislative changes may be made to meet the changing requirements of digital communication. The legal framework that allows user data to be released is strict and requires a clear violation of the law. The importance of platform transparency and user protection is repeatedly emphasized in this context. In conclusion, it can be said that the complete removal of anonymity on platforms such as Kununu is not imminent. However
