If someone damages your reputation online, Dutch law gives you two routes: a criminal complaint for defamation (smaad) or calumny (laster), or a civil claim for an unlawful act. In practice, the civil route, often through urgent proceedings, is usually the fastest way to get content removed, but a court will always weigh your reputation against the other party’s freedom of expression.
Below we explain what counts as defamation, how Dutch courts strike that balance and which practical steps you can take, from a request to the author to a court order against a platform.
What is the difference between smaad and laster?
Smaad means deliberately damaging someone’s honour or good name by accusing them of a specific fact, with the clear aim of making that accusation public. Laster is the same act committed by someone who knows the accusation is untrue.
Under Article 261 of the Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht, Sr), smaad carries a maximum of six months’ imprisonment or a fine. If it is committed in writing or images that are distributed or displayed, it is called smaadschrift, which carries a maximum of one year’s imprisonment or a fine of the third category. Almost all online defamation, such as posts, reviews and articles, falls into this written category.
Dutch law does not use the English split between libel and slander. The same offence applies to spoken and written statements. The written form, smaadschrift under Article 261(2) Sr, only carries a higher maximum penalty.
Under Article 262 Sr, laster carries a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of the fourth category. The prosecution must then prove that the author knew the accusation was false, which is a high threshold.
Does it matter whether the statement is true?
Not always. A true statement can still be smaad if it is made with the clear aim of damaging someone’s reputation. However, under Article 261(3) Sr there is no smaad if the author acted in the necessary defence of his own interests, or could reasonably assume in good faith that the accusation was true and that the public interest required it.
A statement without a specific factual accusation, such as a general insult, is not smaad but may be simple insult (eenvoudige belediging) under Article 266 Sr. Our article on legal solutions for insult, defamation and slander explains the differences in more detail.
Should you choose criminal or civil proceedings?
Most victims choose civil proceedings, because they lead more directly to removal of the content. A criminal case can only start on your complaint and focuses on punishing the author, not on repairing the damage.
Under Article 269 Sr, defamation and calumny are in principle complaint offences (klachtdelicten): the Public Prosecution Service (OM) can only prosecute if you file a formal complaint (klacht). Under Article 66 Sr, you must do so within three months of becoming aware of the offence. This complaint requirement does not apply to the aggravated forms under Article 267 Sr, sub 1 and 2 (statements against public authorities, institutions, or officials acting in the lawful exercise of their duties), which the OM can prosecute even without a complaint. Even then, the OM decides whether to prosecute, and a criminal case rarely results in quick removal of the content. For more background, see our article on criminal liability for statements on social media.
In civil proceedings, you argue that the publication is an unlawful act (onrechtmatige daad) under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). You can then ask the court to order:
- removal of the statements and a ban on repeating them;
- publication of a rectification;
- compensation for the damage, including in some cases non-material damage;
- a penalty payment (dwangsom) for each day or each breach if the order is not complied with.
Compensation in Dutch civil law is meant to make good the damage you actually suffered. Dutch courts do not award punitive damages. If your honour or good name has been harmed, you can also claim compensation for non-material damage (immateriële schade) under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code, which the court sets on a fair basis.
How do Dutch courts balance free speech and reputation?
The court weighs your right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against the author’s freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. Neither right automatically prevails; the outcome depends on the circumstances.
Relevant factors include whether the statement is a factual claim or an opinion, whether the facts are supported by the information available when it was published, how serious the accusation is, whether it contributes to a public debate, and how it was phrased. A harsh value judgement on a matter of public interest is more likely to be allowed than a specific factual accusation without any basis.
The same statement can therefore be unlawful in one context and permitted in another. Dutch courts follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on these questions.
Can you use the GDPR to have content removed?
Yes, if the content contains your personal data, such as your name or photo. Under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), you can ask for erasure of personal data that is inaccurate or unlawfully processed, including removal of search results by a search engine.
This route shifts the question from the author’s intention to whether the processing of your data is lawful. It works alongside a civil claim. The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) supervises compliance, and you can also bring a claim before the civil court. Read more about reviews in our article on online reviews and when they amount to defamation.
Where does the right to be forgotten stop?
It stops where the public interest in the information outweighs your privacy. The right to erasure is not absolute, and courts assess each request on its own facts.
In a judgment of 31 March 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:1123), the Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that Google did not have to remove search results about a man convicted of attempted incitement to murder. The court found that the public had a justified interest in information about such a serious crime, and that the negative attention was a result of his own conduct.
The lesson for practice is that information about serious offences, or about a person’s professional conduct, is harder to remove than outdated or irrelevant personal details. Before starting proceedings, assess honestly whether the content touches on a matter of genuine public interest.
How do you get defamatory content removed?
Start with the least drastic step and escalate only if needed. That approach is often the fastest, and it creates the paper trail you will need if the case goes to court.
Before anything else, secure the evidence. Save screenshots showing the date, the URL and the author’s profile, and keep copies of any messages. Content can disappear, and without proof it is difficult to take action.
Contact the author or the platform
Often the simplest step works. A calm, factual message explaining why a statement is harmful and asking for its removal can be enough, because many people remove content once they see the possible consequences.
If that does not work, or direct contact is not appropriate, report the content to the platform. Under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), hosting services such as social media platforms must offer a notice-and-action mechanism. Identify the exact content with URLs and explain precisely why it is unlawful under Dutch law. A platform that is notified of clearly unlawful content and does not act promptly can lose its protection against liability.
Send a cease and desist letter
If informal steps fail, a lawyer can send a formal demand letter (sommatiebrief). It puts the author on notice that you regard the content as unlawful and will go to court if it is not removed.
A good demand letter identifies the statements with URLs and screenshots, explains the legal basis, states exactly what you want, such as removal and written confirmation, sets a short but reasonable deadline and announces proceedings if the deadline is missed. It also shows the court that you tried to resolve the matter before going to court.
Start urgent proceedings
If the content stays online, you can start preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding) before the preliminary relief judge (voorzieningenrechter). This procedure is designed for urgent situations, and a hearing can often be scheduled within a few weeks.
The judge weighs your reputation against the freedom of expression and can order removal, a rectification or a ban on repetition, backed by a penalty payment. The decision is provisional, but in many defamation cases it effectively resolves the dispute. If you also want compensation, or a final ruling, you can start ordinary proceedings (bodemprocedure), which usually take considerably longer.
What role do Google and social media platforms play?
Platforms are hosting providers, and in principle they are not liable for what users post unless they know about clearly unlawful content and fail to remove it. That makes a well-founded notice your most direct tool.
Platforms are careful about removing content, because they do not want to restrict lawful speech. If a platform refuses your request, a court ruling that declares the content unlawful usually leads to removal. You can also bring the claim against the platform directly, for example in combination with a request for the author’s identity.
Business owners often face false or unfair reviews. For specific guidance, see our article on the consequences of posting false Google reviews.
If you are targeted by a sustained online harassment campaign rather than a single post, other rules may also apply, such as stalking (belaging) and doxing, which has been a criminal offence since 1 January 2024. In that case, report it to the police as well and take legal advice on all available routes.
What if the author is anonymous?
You can ask the court to order the platform or hosting provider to disclose the identifying data of the anonymous user. The Dutch Supreme Court set the conditions for this in the Lycos v Pessers judgment of 25 November 2005 (ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU4019).
Under that judgment, the provider may be obliged to disclose the data if it is sufficiently plausible that the content is unlawful and harmful to you, you have a real interest in obtaining the data, there is no less intrusive way to obtain it, and a balancing of the interests of everyone involved favours you.
Such a claim is usually brought in preliminary relief proceedings against the platform. Anonymity is therefore not a guaranteed shield, although identifying a user of a platform based abroad can take time and may require additional steps.
How do you build a resilient online reputation?
By making sure that accurate, positive information about you ranks high in search results, so that a single negative item has less impact. Prevention does not replace legal action, but it limits the damage when an attack comes.
Start by securing your own digital assets: the relevant domain names for your name or brand, your profiles on the main social platforms and, for businesses, a Google Business Profile. For professionals, a complete LinkedIn profile carries real weight.
Then publish useful content under your own control, such as a professional website, articles on your field and relevant press coverage. The more of the first page of results you control, the less visible a negative item becomes.
Monitor and respond calmly
Monitor mentions of your name or brand, for example with free alerts or a paid monitoring service. Early detection gives you time to respond thoughtfully rather than under pressure.
When you encounter criticism, a defensive or aggressive reaction usually makes matters worse and draws more attention to the original post. Acknowledge fair points, offer to discuss the matter directly and focus on a solution. Keep legal steps for content that is truly unlawful.
In summary
- Smaad (Article 261 Sr) and laster (Article 262 Sr) are criminal offences, but they are only prosecuted on the victim’s complaint, filed within three months.
- A civil claim for an unlawful act (Article 6:162 BW) is usually the most effective way to have content removed, often through preliminary relief proceedings.
- The court always weighs your reputation against freedom of expression; facts without a basis are treated more strictly than opinions on public matters.
- The GDPR offers an additional route to erasure, but the public interest can outweigh your privacy.
- An anonymous author can be identified through a court order if the Lycos v Pessers criteria are met.
Frequently asked questions
Which costs can I recover if I win?
Only part of them, as a rule. In Dutch civil proceedings, the losing party is usually ordered to pay the other party’s legal costs, but on the basis of fixed court scales rather than the actual costs. Court fees and bailiff costs are also part of the cost order.
Out-of-court costs, such as a demand letter, can sometimes be claimed as damage. Discuss the expected costs with your lawyer at the start.
How long does the legal process take?
If an informal request or a demand letter works, the matter can be resolved within a few weeks. Preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding) usually lead to a hearing and a provisional decision within a matter of weeks.
Ordinary proceedings (bodemprocedure) take considerably longer, often many months, before a final judgment is given.
What if the attacker is anonymous?
You can ask the court to order the platform or hosting provider to disclose the user’s identifying data. Under the Lycos v Pessers judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court, this is possible if it is sufficiently plausible that the content is unlawful and harmful, you have a real interest in the data, there is no less intrusive way to obtain it, and your interest outweighs the interests of the others involved.
How do I know if I have a strong case?
First, you must be able to prove that a specific statement was published and that it clearly concerns you or your business. Screenshots with dates and URLs are essential.
Second, the court weighs your reputation under Article 8 ECHR against freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. Your position is stronger if the statement is a factual accusation without a sufficient basis, is not part of a genuine public debate and has caused real damage.
Law & More assists individuals and businesses with demand letters, preliminary relief proceedings and claims against platforms. Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.
How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our IT lawyer page.
