A negative review is not unlawful because it is negative. A customer is entitled to be dissatisfied and to say so, and freedom of expression protects a great deal of harsh opinion. A review becomes unlawful when it crosses into something else: statements of fact that are untrue, allegations with no factual support, or a campaign of anonymous postings designed to damage a business rather than to inform other customers.
Dutch courts decide these cases by weighing the reviewer’s freedom of expression against the business’s right to honour and reputation. What tips the balance is a settled list of factors: the nature of the allegations and how serious the consequences are, how well the allegations are supported by the facts available at the time, the wording used, the manner and reach of the publication, and the interest the public actually has in the information.
Where the line usually falls
An opinion about service, price or quality is protected even when expressed sharply. An assertion of fact that is untrue – that a business defrauded someone, that it is under investigation, that a professional is unqualified – is not, and the burden of showing a factual basis rests on the person who made it.
Two aggravating patterns come up repeatedly. The first is multiple reviews posted by the same person under different aliases, which creates a false impression of a pattern of complaints; courts treat that as a deliberate act rather than an expression of opinion. The second is a review posted as leverage in a dispute about payment, which reads as pressure rather than information.
What you can claim
Where a review is unlawful you can require its removal, require a rectification, obtain an injunction against repetition reinforced by a penalty payment, and claim damages for both financial loss and reputational harm. Summary proceedings are the usual route because the damage accrues while the review stays up.
Anonymous reviewers
Anonymity is not a shield. A platform can be required to hand over the data it holds about a poster where the content is sufficiently likely to be unlawful, the requesting party has a real interest, there is no less far-reaching way to obtain the data, and the balance of interests favours disclosure. That threshold has been part of Dutch law since the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lycos case, and it is the route by which most anonymous review campaigns are eventually attributed.
Practical steps, in order
Secure the evidence first: dated screenshots of the review, the profile and the surrounding page, before anything is deleted. Then use the platform’s own reporting route, which is free and sometimes sufficient. Where that fails, a lawyer’s letter to the reviewer, if identifiable, resolves a good proportion of cases. Litigation is the last step, not the first.
Resist the temptation to respond in kind. A defensive public reply that discloses details of the customer’s file creates a data protection problem on top of the reputational one, and it is read by every future reader of the page.
If you are the reviewer
Write what you experienced, distinguish clearly between fact and opinion, keep the evidence, and do not post under multiple names. A review that stays within those limits is very difficult to attack.
Advice
We act for businesses seeking removal and damages, and for individuals who have received a demand about a review they consider fair. Please contact Law & More.
