News about identifying the authors of negative reviews on review platforms

Nowadays, many companies are increasingly promoting themselves through online reviews. However, an attractive online presence and search engine optimization are not always enough, as potential customers or employees want to get a real feel for the company. In this regard, online reviews have proven to be a good benchmark.

However, the question arises as to what happens if the company wants to find out the identity of the author, possibly because the review appears to be unobjective or potentially damaging to the company's reputation.

Below, we explain two new court rulings on platform liability with regard to online reviews and the identity of reviewers. In two different scenarios, the courts show when the author's identity can be disclosed and when it must be protected.

I. No disclosure of inventory data due to lack of illegal content

A new decision by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated March 11, 2025 (Ref.: VI ZB 79/23) concerns a law firm that was reviewed on an employer review platform. The law firm was of the opinion that the review conveyed a false image of it as an employer and therefore wanted to enforce its right to obtain information about the user who posted the review against the review platform in court.

However, the Federal Court of Justice did not grant the applicant's request in accordance with its previous rulings. The requirements of Section 21 (2) TDDDG were not met. The Federal Court of Justice saw no obligation on the part of the respondent to provide information. This was due in particular to the fact that there was no criminal violation of absolutely protected rights. However, this was a mandatory prerequisite for the provision of information under Section 21 (2) TDDDG. The BGH stated that not every assessment had only one possible interpretation and that, if the content could not be interpreted in only one way, this was not sufficient to assume that the elements of Sections 186 and 187 StGB were fulfilled. The Federal Court of Justice denied that Sections 186 and 187 of the German Criminal Code had been violated, since the statement in the assessment did not constitute an assertion of fact, but rather a value judgment.

The Federal Court of Justice therefore makes it clear that in the case of ambiguous statements in the context of a value judgment, a decision must be made in favor of freedom of expression.

II. "All show and no substance" – Munich Regional Court I orders Google to provide information

While the Federal Court of Justice did not grant a law firm's request for information, the Munich Regional Court (decision of February 19, 2025 – 25 O 9210/24=GRUR-RS 2025, 3167) saw grounds in a comparable case to grant the request even within the framework of so-called chain disclosure. In the present case, a company in the automotive industry was also rated on an employer review platform, namely Kununu. The headlines of the reviews at issue here included the following:

• “All show and no substance”
• "Dream ship Surprise, aimless throughout; all management writes the positive reviews"

In another case, also before the Munich Regional Court (Ref. 25 O 9201/22), the company that was reviewed wanted Kununu to give them the data about the reviews. The Munich Regional Court then told Kununu to give them the data about the people who wrote the reviews, but it turned out that the only thing they had saved about the users was their email addresses. The information provided by Kununu therefore proved to be insufficient, with the result that the company concerned is now taking legal action against Google in the present proceedings. The company concerned sought disclosure of the user's name, address, and date of birth. The party involved, Google, however, requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to Section 21 (2), (3) TDDDG.

First, the Munich Regional Court rejects the assumption that Google is not a "digital service" within the meaning of Section 2(1) TDDDG in conjunction with Section 21(2) TDDDG. Section 21 TDDDG also provides a civil law claim in support of civil law claims.

The court also sees no reason to assume that so-called chain disclosure is not permissible. It also does not share the view that a right to information under Section 21 TDDDG necessarily requires that the statement on which the request for information is based was published via the service of the parties involved.

"Such a 'connection between the provider of the digital service and the dissemination of the infringing content in the digital service' cannot be inferred from § 21 TDDDG, either from its wording or from its systematic or historical context. Rather, the court assumes that the legislature deliberately chose not to establish such a connection."

The court thus makes it clear that, in the context of so-called chain information, the right to information may also include third-party companies, provided that the third-party company has the necessary data. This would particularly take into account the principle of effective legal enforcement, as otherwise the claims for information would be rendered ineffective to a certain extent if the original review platform did not have the relevant inventory data. 

Furthermore, the Munich I Regional Court recognizes that the reviews contain illegal content that fulfills the elements of Sections 185-187 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). No justification is apparent either. The court initially confirms that it concurs with the opinion of previous case law in classifying star ratings predominantly as expressions of opinion, since a rating with stars is, by its nature, characterized by elements of "statement, opinion, and belief." However, the reviews in the respective subcategories, such as "work-life balance" and "environmental/social awareness," contain a number of factual claims that the court declares to be unlawful. These are false factual claims that are capable of fulfilling the elements of Sections 185-187 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).

III. Conclusion

While the decision of the Federal Court of Justice shows under what conditions anonymous reviews on review platforms are worthy of protection and that the identity of their authors must also be protected, the decision of the Regional Court of Munich I emphasizes that not all reviews and their authors can be protected per se. Both decisions therefore confirm that reviews with illegal content do not enjoy protection. Companies are not obliged to tolerate anonymous, untrue, and potentially defamatory reviews, but at the same time they cannot demand the disclosure of the author of a review if the review is based on a value judgment or on proven true factual claims.

In this context, the Federal Court of Justice once again highlights the often very difficult distinction between value judgments and factual claims. In the Federal Court of Justice's reasoning, it is particularly important to note that, unlike ambiguous factual claims, which are usually to the detriment of the author or the person making the statement, ambiguous value judgments are more likely to be considered value judgments. The Federal Court of Justice's decision is therefore a welcome support for the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Basic Law.

At the same time, the decision of the Munich I Regional Court, in particular, is in line with a growing number of other court decisions showing that the courts are assigning responsibility to platform operators in this regard. Even if the original review platform on which the review was published cannot provide sufficient information in the form of inventory data, it is permissible to contact other parties involved, in particular so-called host providers, within the framework of so-called chain disclosure, as was the case here with Google.

Both decisions bring clarity to the issue of platform liability and are therefore to be welcomed.