Court bans revenge reviews against judicial expert
ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2020:2626
Case Details
- Date
- 18 May 2020
- Court
- Rechtbank Oost-Brabant
- Case Number
- C/01/356074 / KG ZA 20-115
- Outcome
- Granted
Expert Analysis
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.
Court Reasoning
- •Reviews contained factually incorrect statements about travel costs and expert's methodology
- •Reviews were solely intended to damage reputation, not to inform other consumers
- •Use of fake profiles and repeated posting of reviews indicates bad faith
Key Takeaways
- •Courts will protect professionals from malicious fake reviews containing factual inaccuracies
- •Negative reviews motivated purely by revenge rather than consumer information are unlawful
- •Using multiple fake profiles to post reviews demonstrates bad faith and strengthens claims
- •Expert witnesses in legal proceedings can seek protection against retaliation through reviews
Significance
This case establishes clear boundaries for legitimate vs. malicious online reviews, particularly protecting court-appointed experts from retaliation.
Practical Implications
Businesses and professionals can successfully challenge demonstrably false and malicious reviews, especially when posted under fake profiles or motivated by revenge rather than genuine consumer experiences.
Legal Basis
Parties
- Plaintiff:
- Court-appointed expert specializing in damage assessment and valuations
- Defendant:
- Former business partners who sold lounge furniture and lost court case involving plaintiff's expert report
Need help with a similar case?
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.