Fake Reviews
Complete analysis of all Dutch court rulings on fake, defamatory, and unlawful online reviews.
Describe Your SituationFighting Fake Reviews
Online reviews have a major impact on business reputation. When reviews are fake, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful, Dutch courts offer legal remedies. Businesses can request removal of unlawful reviews and seek damages. The key legal question is whether a review constitutes an unlawful act under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, balancing freedom of expression against the right to reputation.
ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:59
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.
ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1663
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.
ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:5657
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.
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3760
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.
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:7729
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.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:6160
Two foundations (SBP and SMC) are pursuing legal action against Google c.s. regarding fake online reviews. The court orders both foundations to submit their financing agreements with litigation funders prior to the oral hearing.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:4102
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.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:4005
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.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:197
Wolfson Capital claims against Google entities for alleged abuse of dominance, possibly related to fake online reviews. The court orders oral proceedings to first address jurisdictional issues regarding foreign Google entities, along with whether Google Netherlands was involved in the alleged abuse of dominance.
ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2020:6923
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.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:2653
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.
ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2844
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.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:8063
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.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:987
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.
Including Free Reptor.ai Essential
When 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.
Describe Your Situation
Our specialists will assess your case free of charge and advise you on the best approach.