Have a Review Removed: A Lawyer Specializing in Google Reviews and Fake Reviews
A single review can cause a noticeable drop in bookings and inquiries. Some reviews you just have to accept. Others, you don’t. And sometimes, the competition with that strikingly flawless star rating is simply the result of paid reviews.
First Things First
Four Things You Should Know
Before we get into the details: This is what determines, in almost every case, whether a course of action is worthwhile.
Not every negative review is open to criticism
An opinion is protected, even if it is harsh, exaggerated, or unfair. A review becomes open to criticism only when it contains false factual claims, a lack of customer contact, abusive criticism, or fabrication.
The path leads across the platform, not across the author
A sufficiently specific complaint is essential. Only then is the review process initiated, during which the platform must request evidence from the reviewer.
Competition law helps combat paid reviews
Competitors who are affected do not go through the platform but take action directly against the competitor. That is usually the faster and more effective approach.
Anyone who tries to delete too much will receive a warning themselves
Showing only positive reviews or persuading customers to withdraw their reviews is on the blacklist under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). There is no balancing of interests in this case—the violation is therefore established.
Your team for questions regarding right of reply
Attorney
Juliette Sarvan de Castro
Attorney
Patrick Rehkatsch
"Experienced. Strategic. Assertive.
We solve your legal challenges."
Attorney
Juliette Sarvan de Castro
Attorney
Patrick Rehkatsch
Your Team for Successfully Removing Reviews
Background
Two situations, two completely different paths
Both fall under the heading “Evaluations”—but legally, they have almost nothing to do with each other. That’s why the first question in the initial consultation is always: Which of these two situations do you find yourself in?
A review makes claims that are untrue. Or it comes from someone who has never been a customer—a competitor, a former employee, or an opponent of a client.
Opponents: the platform and the author.
Legal basis: right to privacy, corporate right to privacy, data protection.
A competitor stands out with a strikingly large number of strikingly similar five-star reviews. Or they hide negative reviews and show only the positive ones.
Opponent: the competitor itself.
Basis: competition law—the “blacklist” under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
Test Grid
When a review really needs to be removed
"That's unfair" isn't enough. For a review to be removed, it must be unlawful—and there are four grounds for doing so. One of them is sufficient.
False fact
The claim is something that is objectively verifiable and simply false—a price that was never charged, an appointment that never took place.
No customer contact
The most common reason for deletion of all. Anyone who has never been a customer, guest, or client has nothing to evaluate. This also applies to the opposing party in a proceeding.
Slanderous criticism
The focus is no longer on the issue itself, but on belittling the person. The bar is set high—but it is certainly being cleared.
Fake Review
The review was not written by the person claiming to have written it: fake account, hired agency, generated text.
The Decisive Turning Point
Opinion or Statement of Fact
An opinion is protected by freedom of speech, even if it is harsh or unfair. A statement of fact is subject to proof—and if it is untrue, it is not protected.
“Rude, I won’t be back” is an opinion. “The employee yelled at me and kept my tip” is a statement of fact. The difference determines success or failure—and it often lies in the subordinate clause. That’s exactly why it’s worth breaking down a review sentence by sentence, rather than attacking it as a whole.
OLG Schleswig, February 16, 2022 – 9 U 134/21
Even sharply worded criticism on a review site is not automatically illegal. The tone alone does not make a review open to challenge.
Higher Regional Court of Dresden, June 30, 2025 – 4 U 549/25
If a portal reinstates reviews that were previously deleted, this does not automatically constitute an interference with the established and ongoing business operations.
OLG Stuttgart, September 29, 2025 – 4 U 191/25
Even a negative Google review of legal services must first be evaluated in light of freedom of speech.
Procedure
Here's how we do it
As a rule, the process does not go through the author, but rather through the platform. Google does not have to initiate a search on its own—but as soon as a sufficiently specific complaint is received, an investigation is launched.
1
Save and Send
Screenshot showing the date, profile name, and URL. Reviews disappear and reappear—without a backup, it will later be one person’s word against another’s.
2
Review and raise objections
We distinguish between opinions and factual claims and phrase the complaint in such concrete terms that the legal violation is readily apparent and the platform is compelled to follow up with the author.
3
Take the matter to court
If the review remains posted, a preliminary injunction or a lawsuit will follow—against the platform, against the author, or against both.
BGH, August 9, 2022 – VI ZR 1244/20
Landmark ruling on the requirements for a review subject's objection and the portal operator's review process.
ECJ, Sept. 4, 2025 – C-655/23
A claim for injunctive relief under data protection law requires that a request for deletion have been filed beforehand. The order of these steps is not a mere formality.
REHKATSCH LAWYERS
Who Represents You
Media and competition law have been our core business for over two decades—not just one area of law among many.
For information on how Google reviews are collected and displayed, see the note in the review section above.
Over 20 years of experience in media and competition law
5,000+ cases handled
2Locations: Cologne and Berlin; operates nationwide
Contact
How to Reach Us
Choose the option that works best for you—we'll get back to you quickly.
Schedule an appointment
Right in our calendar—select your preferred date
What'sApp
Quick Questions, Quick Answers
Phone
Available directly Mon–Fri
Write to us about what's on your mind
Important
The Four Mistakes That Turn the Victim Into the One Who Receives the Warning
Anyone who wants to get rid of all negative reviews will quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Several of these practices are on the blacklist under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
Show only the good ones
Anyone who publishes positive reviews and deliberately filters out negative ones distorts the overall picture—and that constitutes a misrepresentation of consumer reviews.
Pressure customers to withdraw
Contacting the reviewer to persuade them to change or delete the review is considered a manipulative practice.
Buy Reviews
Whether written in-house, commissioned through an agency, or generated: this is the core scenario for the blacklist. Simply commissioning the work is enough.
Prohibit reviews by contract
Clauses in terms and conditions that prohibit customers from leaving reviews or impose conditions on doing so are open to challenge—see Regional Court of Koblenz, January 26, 2021—3 HK O 19/20.
Competition Law
When a Competitor Buys Its Stars
In this case, you are not the target of a statement, but a competitor—and therefore have a claim of your own. The case is brought directly against the competitor, not through the platform.
Fake reviews
Reviews that are not written by the person claiming to have written them, or whose author has never purchased or used the product. This also includes reviews written by the author themselves under a false name.
Commissioned Reviews
Even hiring an agency or individual is prohibited—regardless of whether the review is ultimately posted online. The client and the person carrying out the work are jointly liable.
Embellished depiction
Genuine reviews, but presented in a distorted way: shortened, filtered, or moved from one section to another. This is also recorded.
And it doesn't end with the cease-and-desist declaration: Anyone who, after entering into a cease-and-desist agreement, continues to make third-party fake reviews accessible and also comments on them is endorsing them—a violation of their own obligation.
Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, January 11, 2024 – 20 U 91/23
Fake reviews for a lawyer. Advertising for services outside the Internet is also prohibited.
Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, July 22, 2025 – 20 W 47/25
Fake reviews with comments. Commenting on other people's reviews is a form of appropriation; reposting them on another platform is a violation of the same principle.
Munich Regional Court I, July 24, 2023 – 37 O 11887/21
A claim for injunctive relief under competition law against fake reviews related to hotel stays.
Question of Proof
"I'll never be able to prove that"
—yes, you can
This is the objection that causes most people to give up—unjustifiably so. It is true that the burden of proof initially lies with the party challenging the valuations. However, it is sufficient to present circumstantial evidence of the reviews’ lack of authenticity. Once this threshold is met, the opposing party bears a secondary burden of proof: it must demonstrate that it actually provided goods or services to the reviewer.
In the case of reviews posted under a real name and services provided in person, this is easily possible—and if they fail to do so, the reviews must be presumed to be fake. It is worth noting that a lawyer cannot avoid this burden of proof by invoking attorney-client privilege.
Typical indicators we examine
Temporal Clustering
Several reviews within a few days, often following a notable event.
Profiles Without History
Accounts with no other reviews or with reviews spanning unrelated industries.
Linguistic Patterns
Identical phrasing, generic structure, and a lack of details that a real customer would mention.
Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, January 11, 2024 – 20 U 91/23
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to trigger the secondary burden of proof.
OLG Köln, August 27, 2020 – 15 U 309/19
On the obligations to provide explanations and supporting evidence in reviews on review sites.
Get Started Now
Send us the link to the review
—we'll let you know if it's vulnerable.
During an initial consultation, we’ll take a look at your specific case: without legal jargon, without time pressure, and without making promises we can’t keep.
Starting at just €250
for the initial consultation, during which we'll review your evaluation and let you know which path is worth pursuing. [Add VAT]
Information
Who is behind this profile?
This question comes up in almost every initial consultation. Platforms do not voluntarily disclose user data—there is a separate legal procedure for that. A court order is required, and this presupposes that the review contains illegal content that justifies the disclosure of the information.
This course of action is particularly worthwhile if a claim for damages is pending or if you need the author for further legal proceedings. It’s usually not necessary for deletion alone—that’s handled by the platform.
Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, July 9, 2025 – 10 W 11/25
Disclosure of customer data due to a negative review on a review platform.
Cologne Higher Regional Court, April 9, 2026 – 15 W 13/26
Information on data held by employer review sites.
Hamburg Higher Regional Court, February 8, 2024 – 7 W 11/24
Regarding the disclosure of the reviewer's real name to the company being reviewed.
Criminal Law
Are fake reviews a criminal offense?
There is no specific criminal offense called “fake review.” General criminal law still applies, however—but under certain conditions that you need to be aware of.
Fraud
Anyone who posts a fake review convincingly claims to have used the product themselves and to have reviewed it without being influenced. The hurdle lies in financial loss: The person who was deceived must have purchased something that wasn’t worth the money.
Illegal Advertising
Misleading advertising that contains false statements is also subject to criminal prosecution—without the need to prove specific financial loss. In practice, however, such cases have rarely been prosecuted to date.
Defamation
In the case of coordinated smear campaigns, insults, slander, and defamation may be involved. Important: A poor rating alone is not enough—the text must contain a false, disparaging statement of fact.
In practice, this means that filing a criminal complaint is rarely the fastest route. However, it can create pressure if civil proceedings are already underway. We’ll be honest with you about whether it will make a difference in your case.
Self-Assessment
And what about your own reviews?
The point that almost everyone overlooks: If you display customer reviews on your own website, you have a duty to provide information. It’s not the verification itself that’s required—but rather disclosing whether and how verification is conducted.
If you make customer reviews available, you must disclose whether and how you verify that they come from actual customers. Even stating “we do not verify” is permissible—it just has to be included.
The key factor is placement: A notice that’s only accessible via a link isn’t sufficient. It must appear directly next to the review section.
Even small things count as “claims”: an embedded rating badge with an average score, a headline like “What Our Customers Say,” or a star widget in the page header.
In practice, this applies to nearly every online store and every service website with a review widget.
Cologne Higher Regional Court, WRP 2025, 377 – Fishing Classes
Simply including a seal with an aggregated star rating can imply that the reviews come from real customers.
Federal Court of Justice (BGH), July 25, 2024 – I ZR 143/23 – Average Star Rating
All clear elsewhere: It is not necessary to break down the average grade by individual categories.
Time factor
Why Waiting Costs You Time
There is no set deadline for the deletion itself. But there is one for the preliminary injunction—at least in practice. If you wait too long, you’re effectively showing that the matter isn’t urgent, and you’ll lose access to expedited legal relief. That leaves you with the standard litigation process, which takes significantly longer.
Depending on the court, the deadline is a few weeks from the time you become aware of the review. So if a review really bothers you, that initial consultation isn’t something to put off until “sometime soon.”
OLG Bamberg, February 13, 2024 – 6 U 42/23
On the lack of urgency due to waiting too long in connection with the deletion of negative customer reviews.
Frequently Asked Questions About Deleting Reviews
No. A review that reflects a genuine customer experience as an opinion is protected by freedom of speech—even if it seems unfair and even if the tone is unpleasant. It only becomes open to challenge if false facts are claimed, there was no customer contact, the line into defamatory criticism has been crossed, or the review is fake.
This is one of the strongest approaches. Anyone who has never been a customer, guest, patient, or client has no experience that can be evaluated. It is sufficient to inform the platform that the review is not based on a business relationship. The platform must then follow up with the author. If proof is not provided, the review will be removed.
As a general rule, no. The Federal Court of Justice has ruled with regard to review sites that, in principle, there is no right to have the basic profile deleted (BGH, Feb. 15, 2022 – VI ZR 692/20). The focus is therefore on the individual review, not on the profile as a whole.
That depends on the approach. If the matter is handled through the platform’s review process, a few weeks is a realistic timeframe. If legal action is required, it will take longer—though under summary proceedings, it will take significantly less time than under normal litigation. It is important not to lose the right to summary relief by waiting too long.
Yes—but be careful. Anyone who reveals details about the client relationship in their response risks violating the law themselves; for some professions, this also constitutes a breach of confidentiality. A brief, factual response without details is usually the better choice. However, it is not permissible to pressure the reviewer to withdraw their review.
Typical indicators include a conspicuous clustering of reviews over time, profiles with no review history, identical or very similar wording, reviews from regions unrelated to the business’s service area, and text lacking specific details. These indicators are sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party—which must then demonstrate that the customers actually existed.
Yes, if you make customer reviews available. In that case, you are required to disclose whether and how you ensure that the reviews come from real customers. This disclosure must appear directly within the review section, not just behind a link. An embedded seal displaying the average rating also fulfills this requirement.
The initial consultation, during which we review your review and let you know whether and how it can be challenged, starts at €250. What happens next depends on the course of action—out-of-court disputes, injunctions, and lawsuits differ significantly. We’ll clarify the scope of the case beforehand, before you commit to any services. If the opposing party is in the wrong, you may be entitled to reimbursement of costs.