Online reviews today influence whether customers trust a company. They appear on Google, but also on numerous other review portals, booking platforms, business directories, and social media channels. A single negative review or a critical comment can have noticeable consequences for a company. However, not every negative review is unlawful. The decisive factor is whether it constitutes permissible criticism or false, defamatory, or reputationally damaging statements.
When a review becomes legally problematic
Legally central is the distinction between expression of opinion and factual assertion. Critical opinions are to be accepted in principle, even if they are unpleasant or sharply formulated. Statements such as «poor service», «too expensive» or «not recommended» are usually subjective value judgments.
The situation is different when specific facts are alleged. For example, someone writes that a company, despite payment, never delivered, did not provide a service, violated hygiene regulations, or acted fraudulently, thereby making verifiable allegations. If such statements are false and likely to damage the company's reputation, legal action may be warranted.
Having negative reviews removed
The primary focus is the protection of personality rights under Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB). Companies can also suffer damage to their economic and business reputation. Under Article 28a ZGB, the removal, cessation, or determination of an unlawful violation of personality rights can be demanded in particular. In practice, this can mean that an infringing review must be deleted or corrected, or that such statements must be refrained from in the future.
Furthermore, the Federal Act against Unfair Competition may be relevant. According to Article 3 paragraph 1 letter a UWG, it is considered unfair conduct for anyone who disparages others, their services, prices or business relationships through false, misleading or unnecessarily injurious statements. This should be examined especially in the case of reviews by competitors, former business partners, or coordinated fake reviews.
In serious cases, provisions of the Criminal Code may also play a role, such as defamation, libel, or insult. In coercive attempts such as «If you do not give me a discount, I will rate you poorly» , threats or extortion may also be considered, depending on the circumstances.
From the screenshot to the platform report
Before responding publicly or initiating legal action, the review should be carefully secured. This includes a screenshot, date and time, the profile name, the link to the review, and the full review text. Afterwards, it must be checked internally whether genuine customer contact existed and whether invoices, e‑mails, delivery confirmations or complaints substantiate the matter.
An example:
An online shop receives the review «Package paid for, but never arrived. Fraud!» The shop finds a delivery proof with receipt confirmation. In such a situation, a false statement of fact may be present. The company then has better chances of achieving a removal or taking legal action against the review.
Often, reporting on the respective platform is the most pragmatic first step. Google, Trustpilot, Kununu, LinkedIn, Facebook and other providers make internal reporting procedures or reporting functions available. The processes differ depending on the platform. However, they share that generic indications such as «unfair» or «geschäftsschädigend» are usually insufficient. It should be explained concretely which statement is false or unlawful and why.
The platform report, however, has limits. Internal review procedures are often not very transparent for outsiders. Platforms do not examine matters like a court would. Consequently, it can happen that a report is rejected or remains unanswered, even though the assessment is perceived as clearly false or defamatory.
If the platform does not respond
If the platform report does not achieve its purpose, the question of legal enforcement arises. If the author is known, direct action can be taken against that person. Options include a written request for deletion or correction, a lawyer's cease-and-desist warning, a declaration of non‑infringement, or legal proceedings. Such a request should precisely specify which review is being contested, which statement is false, and what evidence supports this.
In particularly serious or urgent cases, precautionary measures may be considered. This is appropriate, for example, when an assessment is severely defamatory, spreads rapidly, or a significant economic damage is imminent. A court may, under certain conditions, order that infringing statements be removed or refrained from in the future.
The situation is more difficult with anonymous reviews or fictitious names. As long as the responsible person is unknown, direct civil prosecution is hardly possible. Platforms generally do not disclose user data without due cause. Filing a criminal complaint against an unknown perpetrator can be appropriate in serious cases, such as defamation, threats, coercion, or systematic fake reviews. However, it does not automatically lead to the identification of the person nor directly to the removal of the review.
Under certain circumstances, action against the platform itself can also be examined, especially if it remains inactive despite clear indications of an obvious legal violation. Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code generally permits action against anyone who participates in an unlawful infringement of personal rights. In practice, however, this route is demanding. Many platform operators do not have a seat in Switzerland, which can significantly complicate jurisdiction, service of process, applicable law, and cost risks.
How should I respond correctly?
Not every legally permissible course of action is also economically sensible. In the case of individual unclear reviews, a factual public response may be more appropriate than legal proceedings. It is important, in this context, not to disclose any client data and to respond objectively. Public counterattacks, premature threats involving lawyers, purchased positive reviews, or coordinated counter‑reviews can backfire both legally and reputationally.
The most important rule is therefore: stay calm, secure evidence, examine the facts and classify them legally in a clean manner. Criticism and opinion must generally be accepted. False factual statements, insults, fake reviews and targeted defamation, however, must not be accepted. Reporting the platform is often the first sensible step. If it does not work, depending on the severity of the case, a cease‑and‑desist notice, precautionary measures, a criminal complaint or legal action against the platform may be considered.
07.07.2026
