{"id":68074,"date":"2023-10-31T21:31:11","date_gmt":"2023-10-31T19:31:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=68074"},"modified":"2024-10-22T16:17:27","modified_gmt":"2024-10-22T14:17:27","slug":"lhr-obtains-preliminary-injunction-against-google-review-about-tax-advisors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/media-law-personal-rights\/lhr-obtains-preliminary-injunction-against-google-review-about-tax-advisors\/","title":{"rendered":"LHR obtains preliminary injunction against Google review about tax advisors"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
\u00a9 Studio Romantic – Adobe Stock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Regional Court of Fulda (LG Fulda, Beschluss v. 25.10.2023, Az. 3 O 110\/23<\/a>) issued an interim injunction<\/a> in favor of a tax consultancy firm at the request of LHR.<\/em><\/p>\n

This prohibits an entrepreneur from making a negative review<\/a> with six untrue factual claims publicly accessible in the applicant’s \u201cGoogle My Business\u201d profile.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

In the event of non-compliance, a fine of up to \u20ac 250,000, or alternatively up to 6 months imprisonment, may be imposed. The amount in dispute is \u20ac 50,000.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Fulda Regional Court agreed with our client that the review<\/a> violated the tax consultants’ general right to privacy.<\/p>\n

Groundless accusations from a failed entrepreneur<\/h2>\n

The company, a former client of the applicant, had miscalculated its pricing during the coronavirus years and was dissatisfied with the company’s results. Instead of taking this as an opportunity to improve the management, the defendant not only wanted to hold the applicant responsible for these economic failures, but also to seek compensation from the applicant’s financial loss liability insurance.<\/p>\n

Valuation blackmail<\/h2>\n

As part of this plan, he sent an email to the applicant on 25.8.2022 in which he threatened the public Google review in question in the event that the applicant did not comply with his demands.<\/p>\n

Instead of taking legal action and asserting the claims to which he was allegedly entitled in court, the defendant carried out his threat approximately one year later, at the end of August 2023, and published the announced public Google review. There he made serious but unfounded allegations of alleged errors in advice.<\/p>\n

Regional court affirms infringement of personality rights<\/h2>\n

The Fulda Regional Court followed the opinion of the applicants and prohibited the public statements. The order was issued without an oral hearing and without reasons. It is not legally binding and can still be challenged by the defendant with an objection.<\/p>\n

However, it is provisionally enforceable. The defendant must therefore delete the rating immediately and the statements if he wishes to avoid administrative remedies. The costs of the claim were also imposed on him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Regional Court of Fulda (LG Fulda, Beschluss v. 25.10.2023, Az. 3 O 110\/23) issued an interim injunction in favor of a tax consultancy firm at the request of LHR. This prohibits an entrepreneur from making a negative review with six untrue factual claims publicly accessible in the applicant’s \u201cGoogle My Business\u201d profile.\u00a0 In the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19453],"tags":[20294,20353,20493,20494],"class_list":["post-68074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media-law-personal-rights","tag-temporary-injunction","tag-injunctive-relief","tag-corporate-personality-rights","tag-tax-consultant","topic_category-media-law","topic_category-reputation-management"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68074"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68074\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68075,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68074\/revisions\/68075"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}