Negative eBay feedback: Do I have to delete “shipping costs are a rip-off”?

What the BGH actually decided

A buyer ordered four hose clamps on eBay for a total of €19.26 including VAT. This included €4.90 for shipping. After delivery, he wrote: “Ware gut, Versandkosten Wucher!!” The seller sought removal of the feedback and reimbursement of pre-litigation legal fees. Her claim failed before the local court but succeeded on appeal before the regional court (BGH, paragraphs 1 to 4).

The BGH reinstated the dismissal of the claim. It decided the case itself rather than sending it back for further examination. The seller could not demand removal of this comment. It therefore made no difference to the outcome whether the claim sought deletion by the buyer or his consent to deletion by eBay (operative part; paragraphs 5, 12 and 43).

Freedom of expression also protects uncomfortable customer criticism

Article 5(1) of Germany’s Basic Law protects opinions. Feedback does not lose this protection merely because it is one-sided, polemical or impolite. The BGH treated the particular comment as a value judgment about shipping costs. A balanced account or detailed explanation was not required (paragraphs 35 and 39).

Protection is not unlimited. Article 5(2) refers, among other things, to general laws and personal honour. The seller’s business reputation also matters. The competing interests generally need to be weighed. “No abusive denunciation, therefore always lawful” would consequently be too broad. The German legal concept of Schmähkritik is itself narrow: personal denigration must displace discussion of the substance. In this case, the criticism remained linked to the shipping service (paragraphs 30 to 31 and 40 to 41).

“Wucher” was a value judgment here, not a finding of fraud

The judgment does not establish that the seller committed a criminal offence or calculated shipping charges incorrectly. The parties even disputed whether the goods had been sent as a parcel or in an ordinary envelope. The BGH did not treat the buyer’s allegation as proven. What mattered was how readers would understand the published comment (paragraphs 35 to 37).

Our own simplified example: “I think the shipping charges are excessive” evaluates a price. “I was charged for shipping twice” describes a verifiable event. Where the two are mixed, the bank statement, invoice and exact wording should be examined together. The BGH judgment does not allow an incorrect factual assertion to be insulated by adding “in my opinion”. This distinction follows from the analysis in paragraphs 35 to 37.

Distinguish the seller’s legal claim from eBay’s rules

The eBay clause applicable at the time required objective feedback and prohibited Schmähkritik. The BGH interpreted it as imposing no stricter contractual limits on value judgments than general German law on statements. This does not mean platform rules are generally irrelevant. The court expressly considered the terms then in force when interpreting the sale contract (paragraphs 14 to 22 and 32).

Under the current eBay policy we reviewed, certain abusive, irrelevant or manipulative feedback is removed, and sellers can request a review. Such a platform decision must be distinguished from a claim enforceable in court against the author. The 2022 judgment neither validates every present-day removal decision nor establishes an automatic right to republication. The current policy is linked separately below.

What to preserve when deletion is demanded

Our practical recommendation: first preserve the complete feedback and the transaction. Then identify the exact statement being challenged and whether it concerns facts, an opinion or both. A lawyer’s warning letter or a court deadline should be reviewed promptly. This judgment does not replace an assessment of your wording or any requested cease-and-desist undertaking.

• Preserve the feedback, including its date, URL, rating and visible context.
• Collect the listing, order, invoice, proof of payment and shipping information.
• Keep complete copies of messages, deletion demands and platform replies.
• Identify any inaccurate statements openly; do not intensify substantive criticism with unsubstantiated allegations.