At least, this is how the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart saw it(ruling of 31.08.2022, Ref. 4 U 17/22).
Time and again, we represent companies that have been wrongly evaluated, for example because the facts were incorrect or the criticism was no longer factual.
What happened
The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court has now ruled on a case in which the person making the assessment had no business relationship with the company at all. Specifically, the case concerned the rating of a law firm. In this case, a former adversary in a lawsuit made the assessment.
Decision of the OLG Stuttgart: A business relationship must be established
The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court ruled here that the person making the assessment must at least have had a business relationship with the company making the assessment or must have come into contact with the company's performance.
The former litigant had given the rating: "critical: professionalism". When viewed in isolation, this evaluation is purely a value judgment. However, the evaluator also gives the reader the impression that he has used the services of the law firm and that this subjective assessment has come about as a result. However, this does not correspond to the facts, since the evaluator actually had only occasional contact and did not have a business relationship with the law firm.
According to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, a former litigant is not in a position to assess the lawyer's performance in internal dealings with his client.
Since the core of the statement is to be regarded as a value judgment and thus as a pure opinion of the person making the assessment, rather than a verifiable statement of fact, the assessment as a whole is to be regarded as an expression of opinion.
The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart then states that the expression of opinion is indeed protected by fundamental rights and thus the interests of the protection of personality are secondary to the freedom of opinion. However, the freedom of expression in dispute in favor of the defendant finds its limit where there are no actual points of reference for a specific opinion that incriminates another person.
Since a balancing of the opposing interests must take place here, the personal right of the law firm (corporate personal right) "wins" at this point, since the actual component of the statement, namely the existence of a business relationship, is untrue. A justified interest of the person making the evaluation to evaluate a business contact that did not actually take place is not evident.
Reviews can be helpful
Reviews on the Internet are basically a helpful matter and can advance the reputation of a company. Particularly when evaluating goods or services, this should make it possible to get an idea of whether the service provider is friendly and competent or whether the goods are of good quality. Sometimes it is also helpful to see how a company handles complaints and returns. These are competition-preserving measures, as long as these ratings are honest and factual.
Bad reviews, on the other hand, are very damaging for companies. This makes it all the more important for them to defend themselves against negative reviews if they do not correspond to the facts.
Have you received a bad rating? Please feel free to ask for advice.
