// Netherlands · Review removal

Childcare center wins damages in fake review case, reputational claim rejected

Rechtbank Amsterdam · 25 October 2017

ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:8063

The case

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.

What the court considered

01Defendant admitted to posting fake Google Reviews under various aliases, constituting tortious conduct
02Material damages of €2,702 awarded for management salary costs dealing with consequences of fake reviews
03Legal costs of €11,000 (Google procedure only) awarded; Ziggo/T-Mobile procedure costs denied as unnecessary
04Non-pecuniary damages denied due to insufficient proof of actual reputational harm
05Publication ban denied due to interference with freedom of expression without exceptional circumstances

What this means in practice

Companies must demonstrate concrete damage to claim compensation for immaterial harm from fake reviews. Legal proceedings must be proportional - attempting to contact the perpetrator should be tried first before initiating costly procedures against internet service providers. This ruling provides important guidelines for companies dealing with false online reviews, particularly regarding the burden of proof for reputational damage and the proportionality of legal proceedings.

Legal basis

Artikel 6:162 BW
Artikel 6:96 BW
Artikel 6:98 BW
Artikel 6:106 BW
Artikel 6:109 BW
Artikel 10 EVRM

Review removal

Related rulings

// GET IN TOUCH

Free Case Assessment

Describe your situation and receive a free assessment of your chances, estimated hours, and recommended approach, within 48 hours.

Free & no obligation

Response within 48 hours

Over 90% of our requests granted

600+ cases handled

Your data is treated confidentially