{"id":68078,"date":"2016-06-07T06:31:23","date_gmt":"2016-06-07T04:31:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=68078"},"modified":"2024-10-22T17:05:05","modified_gmt":"2024-10-22T15:05:05","slug":"jameda-lhr-achieves-deletion-of-a-negative-doctor-review-before-munich-regional-court-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/media-law-personal-rights\/jameda-lhr-achieves-deletion-of-a-negative-doctor-review-before-munich-regional-court-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Jameda: LHR achieves deletion of a negative doctor review before Munich Regional Court I"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_25626\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-25626\" style=\"width: 424px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-25626 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/happydoctors.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"424\" height=\"283\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-25626\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">\u00a9\u00a0Syda Productions &#8211; Fotolia.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><em>Have a Jameda review deleted: We have already helped doctors in numerous cases to have false reviews removed!<\/em><\/p>\n<p>On <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazin\/bgh-urteil-zu-bewertungsplattformen-wdr-beitrag-mit-rechtsanwalt-dr-niklas-haberkamm\">17 March 2016<\/a>, we already reported on the recent decision of the Federal Court of Justice, in which the review obligations of the doctor review portal Jameda were tightened and specified. We also reported <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazin\/negative-online-bewertung-fuer-aerzte-gerichte-nehmen-portalbetreiber-zunehmend-in-die-pflicht\">here<\/a> on the legal situation and how to deal with doctor ratings.<\/p>\n<h2>Jameda deletes review and issues cease-and-desist declaration<\/h2>\n<p>LHR has now successfully taken action against Jameda in further proceedings and has obtained the deletion of a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazin\/medienrecht-und-persoenlichkeitsrecht\/negative-bewertungen\">negative review<\/a> together with a rating. We had already written to Jameda out of court and asked them to delete a negative review to the detriment of our client. The review contained the following text:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Dr. L took about 3 minutes to examine my three-year-old daughter. Need I say more?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In addition, the reviewer gave our client an overall grade of 6 and also awarded a grade of 6 in the individual categories \u201cTreatment\u201d, \u201cClarification\u201d, \u201cRelationship of trust\u201d, among others.<\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: center;\">\n<p><a class=\"typeform-share button myButton\" style=\"display: inline-block; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ff7a59; color: white; cursor: pointer; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 20px; line-height: 50px; text-align: center; margin: 0; height: 50px; padding: 0px 33px; border-radius: 0px; max-width: 100%; white-space: nowrap; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; font-weight: bold; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -moz-osx-font-smoothing: grayscale;\" href=\"https:\/\/arnolampmann.typeform.com\/to\/tKRoYv\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" data-mode=\"popup\" data-hide-headers=\"true\" data-hide-footer=\"true\" data-submit-close-delay=\"10\">Rating quick test<\/a> <script> (function() { var qs,js,q,s,d=document, gi=d.getElementById, ce=d.createElement, gt=d.getElementsByTagName, id=\"typef_orm_share\", b=\"https:\/\/embed.typeform.com\/\"; if(!gi.call(d,id)){ js=ce.call(d,\"script\"); js.id=id; js.src=b+\"embed.js\"; q=gt.call(d,\"script\")[0]; q.parentNode.insertBefore(js,q) } })() <\/script><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2><strong>LG Munich I: Costs of the proceedings to be borne by Jameda<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>After Jameda did not delete the review despite our request, we brought an action on behalf of our client before the competent Munich I Regional Court. After service of the complaint, Jameda initially requested that the complaint be dismissed. However, Jameda then issued a cease-and-desist declaration under penalty of perjury and deleted the review in full within the time limit for filing a response.<\/p>\n<p>Whether the assertion made corresponded to the facts or not was ultimately irrelevant for the existence of a claim for injunctive relief. A claim for injunctive relief already resulted from the fact that other material facts were simply omitted from the assessment. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/rechtsgebiete\/medienrecht\/presserecht\">press law<\/a> case law, it is recognized that, under further conditions, incomplete reporting can be equated with an untrue factual claim. This argumentation was sufficient in the present proceedings to persuade Jameda to delete the report.<\/p>\n<p>By resolution dated 17.05.2016 (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/LG-M\u00fcnchen-Jameda.pdf\">LG M\u00fcnchen I, Beschluss v. 17.5.2016, Az. 25 O 2638\/16<\/a>) the Regional Court of Munich I confirmed our legal opinion and ordered Jameda to pay the costs of the proceedings.<\/p>\n<h3>Successfully <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/thema\/reputation-management\/removal-of-reviews-on-physicians-platforms-such-as-jameda\/\">delete a Jameda review<\/a>:<\/h3>\n<p>The decision shows that legal action against Jameda can be successful, not least since the recent BGH ruling. Experience shows that Jameda is often still not prepared to \u201cvoluntarily\u201d delete a review out of court. In this case, the doctor concerned can then enforce their rights in court.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hs-cta-wrapper\" id=\"hs-cta-wrapper-7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd\"><span class=\"hs-cta-node hs-cta-7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd\" id=\"hs-cta-7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cta-redirect.hubspot.com\/cta\/redirect\/7036071\/7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"hs-cta-img\" id=\"hs-cta-img-7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd\" style=\"border-width:0px;\" src=\"https:\/\/no-cache.hubspot.com\/cta\/default\/7036071\/7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd.png\"  alt=\"\"><\/a><\/span><\/p><script charset=\"utf-8\" defer src=\"https:\/\/js.hscta.net\/cta\/current.js\"><\/script><script type=\"text\/javascript\">window.addEventListener(\"load\", function () {hbspt.cta.load(7036071, \"7561ff74-d8be-4038-b1a6-12a31073edfd\", {});});<\/script>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Have a Jameda review deleted: We have already helped doctors in numerous cases to have false reviews removed! On 17 March 2016, we already reported on the recent decision of the Federal Court of Justice, in which the review obligations of the doctor review portal Jameda were tightened and specified. We also reported here on [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19453,19474],"tags":[20336,20496,20497,20498],"class_list":["post-68078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media-law-personal-rights","category-press-releases","tag-rating","tag-jameda-en","tag-doctor-rating-portal","tag-delete-rating"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68078","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\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68078"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68078\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68084,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68078\/revisions\/68084"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}