Fake Reviews: Your Right to Remove Unlawful Reviews
Are you dealing with fake, defamatory, or unlawful online reviews? Under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (onrechtmatige daad), you have the right to have these removed. MediaMaze has analyzed dozens of Dutch court rulings on fake reviews and helps you with removal. Free case assessment.
Describe Your SituationUnlawful Reviews Under Dutch Law (Article 6:162 BW)
Not every negative review is unlawful. Customers have the right to express their opinion, even if it is critical. However, a review becomes unlawful when it contains factual inaccuracies, is defamatory, or is posted by someone who was never a customer — such as a competitor or a disgruntled ex-employee. The legal basis for removal is Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (onrechtmatige daad). Dutch courts weigh the right to freedom of expression against the right to protection of reputation and good name. Platforms such as Google, Trustpilot, and Facebook have a duty of care: once notified of an unlawful review, they must act. Most cases are resolved without court proceedings when a well-substantiated removal request is submitted.
The 6 Factors Courts Consider in Review Cases
Our analysis of Dutch court rulings on online reviews shows that courts apply a structured assessment when determining whether a review is unlawful. A review is not unlawful merely because it is negative — but when specific factors are present, such as demonstrable falsehoods or coordinated competitor attacks, courts are inclined to order removal. The key is presenting a well-documented case that addresses these factors. The success rate for professionally prepared removal requests is high, because most cases are resolved at the platform level without the need for court proceedings.
1. Factual Inaccuracies vs. Opinion
The most important distinction in review cases is between statements of fact and expressions of opinion. A statement of fact ("this company committed fraud") can be verified and must be true. If a review contains demonstrably false factual claims, it is almost always considered unlawful. Opinions ("I found the service disappointing") enjoy much broader protection under freedom of expression, even when they are harsh. Courts carefully examine whether the reviewer presents allegations as facts or as personal experience.
2. Context and Tone
Courts consider the overall context and tone of the review. A review that is merely critical but respectful is treated differently from one that is personally insulting, threatening, or uses hateful language. Excessive use of capitals, exclamation marks, or aggressive language can contribute to the finding of unlawfulness. The context also matters: a single negative review among many positive ones is weighed differently from a pattern of targeted harassment.
3. Identity of the Reviewer
Who posted the review is highly relevant. A review by an actual customer carries significantly more weight than one by a competitor, an ex-employee with a grudge, or someone who has never used the product or service. Courts view reviews posted under fake names or by people with no demonstrable customer relationship as particularly suspect. If a competitor can be identified as the author, this is almost always grounds for removal — it constitutes unfair competition under Dutch law.
4. Damage to the Business
Courts assess the concrete damage caused by the review. This includes loss of revenue, decreased customer trust, lower conversion rates, and reputational harm. The more specific and demonstrable the damage, the stronger the case for removal. A single low-star review on a small business with few reviews can have disproportionate impact compared to a large company with thousands of reviews. Courts recognize that even one fake negative review can significantly affect a business's online visibility and revenue.
5. Platform Duty of Care
Review platforms such as Google, Trustpilot, Bol.com, and Facebook have a legal duty of care under Dutch law. Once a platform is notified that a review is unlawful — with sufficient substantiation — it must investigate and, if the complaint is valid, remove the review. This principle was established in Dutch case law and reinforced by the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). Platforms that fail to act after a well-substantiated notification can themselves be held liable for the continued publication of the unlawful content.
6. Proportionality
Courts assess whether the review is proportional to the actual experience. A one-star review with extreme allegations over a minor service issue may be considered disproportionate. Similarly, reviews that call for boycotts, contain personal threats, or target individual employees by name go beyond proportionate criticism. Courts weigh the reviewer's right to expression against the proportionality of the harm caused. When the review is vastly out of proportion to the underlying complaint, this favors removal.
Each of these factors is weighed by the court in its assessment. A case that clearly demonstrates multiple factors — particularly factual inaccuracies combined with a non-customer reviewer — has the strongest prospects. MediaMaze analyzes your situation against all six factors and advises you honestly about the likelihood of a successful removal.
Do You Recognize Your Situation?
Unlawful reviews occur in many forms. Below we describe the most common scenarios from our practice. Each situation requires a specific legal approach.
Competitor Posts Fake Reviews
One of the most common forms of review fraud: a competitor posts negative reviews about your business under a fake name, or has others do so. This constitutes unfair competition and is unlawful under both tort law (Article 6:162 BW) and competition law. If the competitor can be identified, you may also claim damages. MediaMaze investigates the origin of suspicious reviews and builds a legally sound case for removal.
We help you with thisEx-Employee Leaves Negative Review
After a dismissal or conflict, former employees sometimes leave damaging reviews about their ex-employer. While employees have a right to share their experience, reviews that contain confidential information, personal attacks on management, or demonstrably false claims about working conditions cross the line. Courts also consider whether the review is motivated by personal resentment rather than a genuine desire to inform others.
We help you with thisReview Contains Factual Lies
Sometimes a review contains claims that are simply not true: "they did not deliver the product" while delivery was confirmed, "the food made me sick" without any evidence, or "they charge hidden fees" that do not exist. When you can demonstrate with evidence — invoices, correspondence, delivery confirmations — that the claims are factually incorrect, this provides a strong basis for removal. Platforms are generally responsive to well-documented factual corrections.
We help you with thisCoordinated Attack with Fake Reviews
In some cases, a business faces a coordinated campaign of negative reviews — multiple fake reviews posted within a short timeframe, often by accounts with no review history. This can be organized by a competitor, a disgruntled individual, or even a paid "review bombing" service. Courts take coordinated attacks particularly seriously as they constitute systematic defamation. The pattern itself — timing, similar language, new accounts — serves as evidence of coordination.
We help you with thisDisproportionately Defamatory Review
Some reviews go far beyond legitimate criticism: personal insults directed at the business owner, accusations of criminal behavior without evidence, threats, or calls to boycott. Even when a customer had a genuine negative experience, the way they express their dissatisfaction must remain proportionate. A review that calls a restaurant owner a "thief" and "criminal" over a billing dispute is disproportionate. Courts regularly order removal of reviews where the tone and content are vastly out of proportion to the underlying complaint.
We help you with thisDealing with Fake or Unlawful Reviews?
Describe your situation and receive a free assessment. Our specialists analyze your case based on current case law and advise you on the best approach for removal.
Describe Your SituationThe MediaMaze Approach: From Assessment to Removal
MediaMaze has over 15 years of experience with online reputation management and has handled more than 1,200 cases involving unlawful online content, including fake reviews. We know how platforms like Google, Trustpilot, and Facebook process removal requests, and what arguments are most effective. Our approach is based on the case law we have analyzed.
Free Assessment
You describe your situation via our contact form. Our specialists assess the reviews in question free of charge against the six legal factors and advise you honestly about the chances of successful removal.
Evidence Collection & Analysis
We collect and document the evidence: screenshots with timestamps, analysis of the reviewer's profile, identification of patterns (coordinated attacks), and your counter-evidence such as invoices or correspondence. This forms the foundation of the removal request.
Formal Removal Request
We draft a legally substantiated removal request and submit it to the platform (Google, Trustpilot, Facebook, Bol.com, etc.). Each platform has its own procedures and criteria — we tailor the request accordingly. A well-argued request that references relevant case law and the Digital Services Act significantly increases the chance of success.
Monitoring with Reptor.ai
During the handling of your case and 30 days afterward, you receive free access to Reptor.ai Essential. This platform monitors your online reviews across all major platforms and alerts you to new reviews, so you can respond quickly to any future issues.
Escalation & Legal Proceedings
If the platform does not remove the review voluntarily, we advise you on the next steps. This may include a formal legal notice (sommatie) to the reviewer, a complaint under the Digital Services Act, or court proceedings (kort geding). Our database of analyzed court rulings provides insight into what arguments work before the court.
EssentialWhen you submit a request through us, you receive free access to Reptor.ai Essential during the handling of your case plus 30 days afterward. Monitor your online reputation in real-time.
Dutch Case Law on Fake and Unlawful Reviews
Below you will find all Dutch court rulings on fake and unlawful reviews that we have analyzed. Each ruling has been assessed by AI for outcome, reasoning, and practical implications. Click on a ruling for the full analysis.
Car dealer's demand to remove Google Maps reviews rejected by court
A car dealer demanded Google remove four negative reviews from Google Maps, claiming they were unlawful. The court denied all claims as the reviews were based on genuine customer experiences and contained no false facts but rather evaluations protected by freedom of expression.
Supreme Court rejects Digital Revolution's appeal against Google over unlawful reviews
Digital Revolution B.V. appealed to the Supreme Court against Google Ireland Ltd in a case concerning unlawful online reviews, but the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The judgment provides no substantive reasoning as the complaints were not important for legal development.
Debt collector loses bid to remove negative Google reviews over opinion statements
A debt collection company demanded Google Ireland remove three negative reviews it considered unlawful. The court denied all claims because the reviews contained subjective opinions rather than factually incorrect statements, and the plaintiff could not prove the reviews were inauthentic.
Law firm's bid to remove negative Google reviews rejected by court
A law firm demanded Google remove four negative reviews it considered fake, plus disclosure of user data from 20 accounts. The court denied both claims as unlawfulness of the reviews was not established and plaintiffs failed to provide concrete substantiation why the reviews would be fake.
Court Blocks Legal Advisor's Bid to Unmask Negative Reviewers
A legal advisor sought user data from Google Ireland Ltd. regarding two negative reviewers and removal of reviews about his business. The court denied both claims because the reviews contained personal experiences from individuals who were opposing parties in a dispute with plaintiff, no concrete damages were proven, and users' interest in anonymity outweighed plaintiff's interest in data disclosure.
Car dealers win case against customer over unjustified fraud reviews
A dissatisfied customer who bought three problematic cars posted multiple negative reviews accusing car dealers of fraud and deception. The court ruled one review was legitimate due to justified dissatisfaction, but other reviews were unlawful as fraud allegations were insufficiently substantiated.
Court advances class action against Google over fake online reviews
This concerns an interim decision in a class action by Foundation Interest Group Individuals (SBP) and Foundation Consumer Reporting Point (SMC) against Google regarding fake online reviews. The court is addressing procedural matters such as financing, representativeness and admissibility before assessing the substantive claims.
Court Orders Google to Unmask Antisemitic Reviewers in NEG-IT Case
NEG-IT requested Google to provide identification data of reviewers who had posted antisemitic and defamatory reviews. The court granted the request because the reviews were clearly unlawful and NEG-IT had no other way to discover the perpetrators' identity for follow-up action.
Patent Office Official Loses Bid to Force Google to Remove Critical Review
Patent office Griebling demanded that Google Ireland remove a negative review and provide identification details of the reviewer, claiming the review was fake because they didn't recognize the name. The court denied all claims because the review was professionally worded, not manifestly unlawful, and Griebling had insufficiently proven the review was fake or revenge-motivated.
Computer business fails to force Google removal of negative review
A computer business demanded Google remove a negative review it considered 'fake'. The court denied the claim as it was insufficiently proven that the review was evidently unlawful - Google demonstrated the business did sell Asus computers and negative reviews under pseudonyms are permitted.
Court bans revenge reviews against judicial expert
Court prohibits defendants from posting negative Google reviews about a judicial expert after a lounge furniture dispute. The reviews contained factual inaccuracies and were solely intended to damage the expert's reputation.
Supreme Court dismisses Google review dispute appeal for lacking general legal significance
A detained person filed a cassation appeal against Google Inc. regarding a dispute about online reviews. The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal without substantive consideration because the complaints did not raise legal questions of general interest.
Childcare center wins damages in fake review case, reputational claim rejected
A childcare center claimed damages from an acquaintance who systematically posted fake Google Reviews under various aliases over ten months. The court awarded material damages and part of the legal costs, but rejected non-pecuniary damages due to lack of proof of actual reputational harm.
Daycare wins legal battle over fake Google reviews, court orders removal and user data disclosure
A daycare center successfully fought against four fake Google reviews that were copied from other websites and used false identities. The court ordered Google to remove the remaining review and provide personal data of all four reviewers, but denied the request to remove the entire review function.
Court Orders Google to Remove Defamatory Blogs, Unmask Anonymous Writers
An individual accused on blogs of serious crimes including fraud and pedophilia demanded that Google remove these blogs and provide identity data of anonymous writers. The court partially granted the claim, ordering Google to remove two specifically unlawful blogs and provide identity information, but denied a general future removal obligation.
Telecom company wins court order removing blogger's unsubstantiated fraud accusations
Total Telecom and its director succeeded in their interim proceedings against a blogger who accused them of connections to the porn industry and fraud via blogs and Twitter. The court ruled these statements were unlawful as they lacked sufficient factual substantiation, despite freedom of expression.
Frequently Asked Questions About Fake Reviews
When is a review considered unlawful?
A review is considered unlawful under Dutch law when it constitutes an "onrechtmatige daad" (tort) under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code. This is the case when the review contains demonstrably false factual claims, is disproportionately defamatory, is posted by someone who was never a customer (such as a competitor), or constitutes systematic harassment. The key legal test is whether the review crosses the boundary between legitimate criticism and unlawful harm to reputation. Courts balance the reviewer's right to freedom of expression against the business's right to protection of its good name.
How do I get a Google review removed?
Google offers a formal procedure for reporting reviews that violate their policies. However, Google's standard removal process only covers policy violations (spam, hate speech, conflicts of interest). For reviews that are unlawful under Dutch law but do not clearly violate Google's policies, a legally substantiated removal request is far more effective. Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), Google is obliged to act on well-founded notifications of illegal content. MediaMaze drafts these legal notifications and submits them through the correct channels, significantly increasing the chance of removal.
Can I have a Trustpilot review removed?
Yes, Trustpilot has its own review reporting system and must comply with the Digital Services Act (DSA). Trustpilot is generally more responsive than Google to documented complaints about fake reviews, because their business model depends on review integrity. They have a dedicated Content Integrity team. However, Trustpilot requires specific evidence: proof that the reviewer was not a customer, documentation of factual inaccuracies, or evidence of coordinated attacks. MediaMaze knows which arguments and evidence are most effective with Trustpilot and handles the entire removal process.
What does it cost to have reviews removed?
MediaMaze works at an hourly rate of €230 (excl. VAT). Most review removal cases require 4 to 6 hours of work, depending on the complexity and the number of reviews involved. During a free, no-obligation intake we assess your chances of success and provide an estimate of the hours required — so you know exactly where you stand before committing. Cases involving multiple platforms or coordinated attacks may require more hours. Court proceedings (kort geding) involve additional costs.
How long does it take to have a review removed?
The timeline depends on the platform and the approach. Google typically responds within 1 to 3 weeks. Trustpilot usually processes complaints within 1 to 2 weeks. For straightforward cases where the review clearly violates platform policies, removal can happen within days. For legally complex cases that require a formal notification under the Digital Services Act, expect 2 to 6 weeks. If court proceedings are necessary (kort geding), this typically takes 4 to 8 weeks. MediaMaze always starts with the fastest available route and escalates only when necessary.
Can I claim damages for fake reviews?
Yes, if you can identify the person or entity behind the fake reviews, you can claim damages under Article 6:162 BW (tort). This includes both material damages (lost revenue, decreased sales) and immaterial damages (reputational harm). To claim damages, you need to demonstrate: (1) the review is unlawful, (2) it is attributable to the reviewer, (3) you have suffered damage, and (4) there is a causal link between the review and the damage. Courts have awarded damages ranging from several hundred to tens of thousands of euros in review cases. MediaMaze can help identify the reviewer and document the damages.
What if I don't know who the reviewer is?
If the reviewer is anonymous or uses a pseudonym, there are several options. First, you can request the platform to remove the review directly — you do not need to know the reviewer's identity for this. Second, under certain conditions you can request the platform to disclose the reviewer's identity data (such as IP address and email) through a court order. This is possible when there is a strong suspicion of unlawful behavior. Third, MediaMaze can analyze the review for patterns that indicate the likely source: language patterns, timing, and cross-platform comparison can reveal whether a competitor, ex-employee, or organized group is behind the reviews.
What is the difference between a negative review and an unlawful review?
A negative review is one where the customer expresses dissatisfaction with a product or service. This is entirely legal — even when the criticism is harsh or the star rating is low. Everyone has the right to share their honest opinion. An unlawful review goes beyond legitimate criticism: it contains demonstrably false claims presented as facts, it is posted by someone who was never a customer, it is disproportionately defamatory (personal insults, threats), or it is part of a coordinated attack. The critical question is not whether the review is negative, but whether it is truthful, proportionate, and posted by a genuine customer.
Can I as a business have reviews removed?
Yes, unlike the right to be forgotten (which only applies to individuals), the legal framework for removing unlawful reviews applies equally to businesses. Companies can invoke Article 6:162 BW (tort) and the Digital Services Act to have unlawful reviews removed from platforms. This is one of the key differences with the right to be forgotten: both individuals and businesses can take action against fake, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful reviews. MediaMaze assists both individuals and businesses with the removal of unlawful reviews.
Which platforms are obliged to remove reviews?
Under the Digital Services Act (DSA), all online platforms operating in the EU are obliged to act on well-founded notifications of illegal content — including unlawful reviews. This applies to Google (Google Maps/Business), Trustpilot, Facebook, Bol.com, Amazon, TripAdvisor, Glassdoor, and any other platform hosting user reviews. The DSA requires platforms to have clear reporting mechanisms and to process reports "in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner." Platforms that fail to comply can face significant fines. MediaMaze submits removal requests to all relevant platforms using the correct legal frameworks.
Free Case Assessment
Describe your situation and receive a free assessment of your chances, estimated hours, and recommended approach — within 48 hours.
Your data is treated confidentially