Review without customer contact: When must the platform act?

The first step: give the platform a specific reason to investigate

A negative review is not unlawful simply because it harms business. If the claimed experience never occurred, however, the business’s personality rights may be affected. For hotel reviews, the BGH clarified that an objection denying guest contact is generally sufficient to trigger investigative duties. Details in the review do not automatically change that. The judgment of 9 August 2022, VI ZR 1244/20, addresses this in paragraphs 27 to 31 and 35 to 40.

The BGH also identifies limits: if the reviewer’s identity is readily apparent, a more detailed explanation may be needed. Abuse of rights remains excluded, paragraph 37. The case concerned a hotel portal that had refused to make any enquiries of the reviewers. It does not establish a right to blanket removal of negative reviews.

Frankfurt 2026: a bare assurance that contact was verified may not suffice

The order of 31 August 2026, 16 W 40/26, concerned a review of a vehicle business. The company could not associate the pseudonymous review with a business contact. The platform asked the reviewer for information and received documents. It republished the previously removed review without passing on verifiable information from those documents to the company.

The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court considered this insufficient. The affected business must be able to check whether contact occurred using information that may need appropriate anonymisation. In this case, the platform could not replace that opportunity with its own bare assurance. See reasons B. II. 3. b) bb) (b). This does not establish a blanket entitlement to the reviewer’s name or every unredacted document.

An important qualification: the documents produced in the proceedings did establish business contact. Both parties then declared the substantive dispute resolved. The Higher Regional Court decided only the costs issue and dismissed the platform’s appeal. It assessed that the claim would have succeeded when filed, based on the facts and dispute at that stage. The order is therefore not a final removal judgment against a review shown to reflect genuine contact.

Investigative duties and the burden of proof are separate issues

The court expressly states that the company must plead and prove its allegation that no business contact occurred. In that case, however, it first needed information held only by the platform. Sharing verifiable details is intended to close that information gap. It does not replace the subsequent examination of what actually happened.

Our assessment: distinguish an inability to identify a transaction, a disputed contact and specific errors in the review. If genuine contact is later established, reassess which objection remains supportable. Proven contact does not make every factual allegation true. Conversely, an unfamiliar profile name does not make a review fabricated.

Berlin 2026: limits on blanket removal demands

Berlin II Regional Court illustrates an important limitation in its judgment of 21 April 2026, 27 O 66/26 eV. A nightclub denied customer contact in numerous proceedings using largely identical complaints. Some reviews contained specific, plausible accounts. Considering the overall circumstances, the court treated the approach as an abuse of rights and rejected the application for an interim injunction, paragraphs 19 to 23.

This is an interim-proceedings decision, not a general prohibition on challenging multiple reviews. Its reasoning nevertheless creates tension with the BGH’s low threshold for substantiation insofar as contact is inferred from details in reviews. The BGH generally does not treat such details alone as sufficient to require further substantiation. That makes examination of the specific allegation of abuse particularly important. Our source review could not verify a later published appellate decision concerning this Berlin judgment.

What the DSA requires today

The references to the former Telemedia Act in the 2022 BGH judgment must not be presented unchanged as current law. The Frankfurt court expressly considers Articles 6 and 8 DSA in reasons B. II. 3. b) aa): there is no general monitoring obligation, but specific notices and the hosting provider’s response remain relevant. Article 6(4) DSA preserves court orders requiring an infringement to end or be prevented.

For the notice procedure, Article 16(2) DSA requires, among other things, an explanation of the alleged illegality, the precise electronic location, a name and email address, and a statement of good-faith belief in accuracy and completeness. Under paragraph 6, notices must be processed in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner. This does not establish a fixed removal deadline for every review or automatic success.

How to prepare a substantiated complaint

Our practical recommendation is to keep a separate record for each review. This makes it possible to reconstruct what was reported, which information was missing and whether the platform responded adequately. Assess new information from the reviewer rather than repeatedly sending the same standard complaint.

• Save the full text, rating, date, profile name, URL and a screenshot.
• Record whether contact is unknown, a known event is misrepresented or specific statements are disputed.
• Match bookings, correspondence and other evidence internally, including information that may weaken your position.
• Keep the notice, acknowledgement, platform response and subsequent information in chronological order.