{"id":71860,"date":"2026-10-28T04:49:36","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T02:49:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=71860"},"modified":"2026-10-29T22:35:20","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T20:35:20","slug":"notice-deleted-reviews-munich-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/data-protection-law\/notice-deleted-reviews-munich-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Deleted, but flagged: Munich court allows notice of removed reviews"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Illustration:Having a fake review removed does not mean you get your profile back. Many platforms now record the deletion visibly, often using the word \u201cdefamation\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

Following the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, the Higher Regional Court of Munich has now also ruled that such a notice may stay. For those affected, the question shifts to how best to deal with unlawful reviews.<\/em><\/p>\n

In an order of 21 September 2026 (case no. 18 W 839\/26<\/a>), the Higher Regional Court of Munich (Oberlandesgericht M\u00fcnchen) rejected an application for an injunction brought by a law firm against the operator of a review platform. The platform had noted in the firm\u2019s profile that several reviews had been removed for \u201cdefamation\u201d. They had been deleted because their authors had apparently never been clients of the firm. Of all things, the firm\u2019s success against the false reviews thus reappeared as a blemish on its profile.<\/p>\n

Why the court sided with the platform<\/h2>\n

Like the Higher Regional Court of Cologne before it, the Munich court examined the case essentially under the GDPR. The information about deleted reviews is data relating to the firm and its professional activity. The platform may process it if it has a legitimate interest and the interests of the person concerned do not prevail (Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The court found such an interest in transparency about deletions and about possible distortions of the overall rating. According to the order, the platform\u2019s concern is to be recognised as a legitimate interest, and the notice also serves a legitimate interest of the platform\u2019s users. On the other side, only the firm\u2019s professional sphere was affected, and the notice was worded neutrally.<\/p>\n

Nor was the court troubled by the word \u201cdefamation\u201d. The notice was based on true facts, the term corresponded to general usage, and the linked explanations made sufficiently clear what was meant. That readers are more likely to think of slander than of an author who simply was never a customer was something the court considered acceptable.<\/p>\n

The Digital Services Act does not help here<\/h2>\n

What is new compared with the Cologne decisions is the look at the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). The firm had also relied on the European platform rules. The Munich court rejected any claim on that basis: the DSA does not give profile holders a right to have a notice removed that the platform has written itself. That makes sense, as the obligations under the DSA essentially concern the handling of user content, not the operator\u2019s own statements.<\/p>\n

Three higher regional courts, one line<\/h2>\n

There are now three appellate decisions, all pointing in the same direction. On 12 June 2026 (case no. 15 W 55\/26<\/a>), the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Oberlandesgericht K\u00f6ln) denied a doctor a claim against a comparable notice, likewise on the basis of the GDPR. We reported on that case in detail (in German)<\/a> and explained why we consider the reasoning too narrow.<\/p>\n

The competition law senate of the same court took the same view on 14 July 2026 (case no. 6 W 50\/26<\/a>), this time under unfair competition law. A holiday resort had objected to the note \u201c21 to 50 reviews removed due to complaints of defamation\u201d in its Google profile. With no fewer than 5,528 reviews, the average consumer would not understand the notice as an accusation that the business deliberately fights legitimate criticism, the senate held. It rejected both disparagement under Section 4 of the German Act against Unfair Competition (UWG)<\/a> and interference with the established business.<\/p>\n

One may regret this, and we do. A doctor, lawyer or hotelier who sees the word \u201cdefamation\u201d next to their name does not perceive it as a neutral statistic. In practice, however, businesses will have to adjust to this case law.<\/p>\n

What those affected should now bear in mind<\/h2>\n

After three consistent decisions, action against the notice itself currently has little prospect of success. That does not mean there are no starting points left. Anyone who keeps an eye on these notices can do quite a lot:<\/p>\n