Skip to content

Removing a negative review: what the court requires of businesses

16 August 2026Juriaan de Vries

Unlawful reviews and freedom of expression

Debt collection agency Debtt asked Google to remove ten negative reviews from its business listing. Seven were taken down, one followed after the writ of summons was served, and Debtt litigated over the last two, which contained the words fraud and swindling, all the way to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal. On 4 August 2026 that court upheld the dismissal. Across forty-three decisions on review removal, a platform has been ordered to remove exactly once.

Debtt demands removal of two reviews from Google

Debtt B.V. provides debt collection services; Credit Management B.V. is its sole director and shareholder. Visitors can leave a review on Debtt's business listing on Google Search and Google Maps. Google removed the reviews it considered contrary to its content moderation policy. As to what remained, Debtt brought preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding) seeking removal, an order to keep the reviews removed and a ban on comparable accusations, on pain of a penalty payment.

One review read, among other things, "fraud", "sending false and inauthentic invoices" and "you have to pay, they try to swindle you". The other read: "I am very dissatisfied with the working method and regard the actions as swindling. The threats are wholly unacceptable and cause unnecessary stress."

The provisional relief judge in Lelystad dismissed the claims on 31 October 2025 and ordered Debtt to pay €1,999 in costs (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:5657). On appeal Debtt reduced its claim to the two remaining reviews and advanced eight grounds of appeal; the court of appeal upheld the judgment and ordered it to pay a further €3,407 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5138).

Court of appeal: fraud and swindling are subjective value judgments

An internet platform such as Google may be required to remove information posted by third parties where its content and wording are manifestly unlawful as against the party requesting removal (paragraph 4.5). A review is unlawful where it does not rest on the reviewer's actual experiences, is factually incorrect or is needlessly offensive. The platform must also be able to establish this in a straightforward manner, as the parties agreed at the hearing (paragraph 4.6). That test does not extend to investigating the background of the review or the relationship between reviewer and business.

All six strands of Debtt's argument failed that test. In paragraph 4.13 the court of appeal treated the terms "fraud", "false" and "I regard the actions as swindling", read together with the wording, tone and overall tenor, as subjective value judgments that convey nothing substantiated about criminal culpability to the average reader. It also weighed that the nature of debt collection work means that those subjected to it will generally rate it strongly negatively, whether or not the agency acted properly.

The suggestion that the two reviewers formed part of an organised smear campaign remained a suspicion, as Debtt itself described it (paragraph 4.12). An earlier default judgment against an entirely different counterparty carried no weight, because it lacked any substantive argument between the parties (paragraph 4.14). In paragraph 4.15 the court of appeal declined to read Google's removal of eight other reviews as an admission of unlawfulness: those reviews were not before it.

Google's content policy says nothing about unlawfulness

The sharpest rule in this case appears at first instance, in paragraph 3.4: a review that breaches Google's policy is not for that reason unlawful as against the business. The court of appeal echoed that in paragraph 4.16, where it dismissed the argument that Google had breached its own content moderation policy as insufficiently substantiated. The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court reached the same conclusion back in 2020 in the case of patent agency Griebling against Google, and the Northern Netherlands District Court did so in 2025 in a case brought by a law firm against Google (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3760).

Section 6:196c DCC has gone, the DSA has taken over

The statutory basis underlying this test has shifted. Section 6:196c DCC, on which the case law between 2016 and 2021 built its test, was repealed on 4 February 2025 by the implementing act for the Digital Services Act (Stb. 2025, 21). The liability exemption for hosting services now sits directly in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The judgment of 4 August 2026 accordingly makes no mention of Section 6:196c DCC and applies, in paragraph 4.4, Section 6:162 DCC in conjunction with Section 3:296 DCC directly.

The regulation is also making itself felt procedurally. In that case brought by the law firm, Google argued that the removal claim was too imprecise to meet the requirements of Article 9 of the regulation, and the information claim those of Article 10. The provisional relief judge never reached the point, because the claims already failed on the merits (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3760). Anyone seeking an order against a platform would do well to address that specificity requirement up front.

When removal of a review is in fact ordered

The odds differ sharply depending on the defendant. The set analysed comprises forty-three Dutch civil decisions on the removal of online reviews, from December 2015 to August 2026. Eight were proceedings against Google or Trustpilot, and they account for that single order. Twenty-six were directed at the reviewer, and there the claim succeeded twelve times in whole or in part.

That single order against Google dates from 2016 and concerned an Amsterdam day nursery. There it was established that one review had largely been copied from a pregnancy forum dating back to 2010 and a second from a review about a different day nursery. Google removed three of the reviews as spam after the hearing. The provisional relief judge ordered the fourth removed because it demonstrably used a fake profile picture, namely the portrait photograph of a person affiliated with an American university, infringing that person's image rights (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:987).

The same pattern recurs in claims against reviewers. Orders followed where the inaccuracy was objectively established. A loss adjuster appointed as a court expert was accused in reviews of having charged "almost €1,200" for around an hour and a half of travel and inspection. The fee assessed by the subdistrict court comprised €142.12 in travel costs and €840 for six hours of travel and inspection time, and his NIVRE registration had demonstrably run without interruption since 2009 (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2020:2626). Orders also followed where volume was combined with shifting names: in April 2026 a letting agency for French holiday homes obtained an injunction and a penalty payment capped at €25,000 against tenants who had posted reviews on several websites under different names (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:3455).

The dividing line runs between a value judgment and a factual assertion. A customer of a car dealership in Noord-Brabant wrote on Google and Trustpilot that he had been sold a new commercial vehicle with concealed damage and without the agreed options, and that he had been swindled. The Rotterdam District Court ordered him to remove the posts, because that specific accusation found no support in the evidence available. In the same judgment the provisional relief judge expressly permitted him to post one new review, under his own name, describing what had actually happened to him (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:4056).

Calls to others to leave reviews form a category of their own. In 2019 the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal held that a singer's critical posts about music school De Notenboom remained within freedom of expression. Her message "One-star reviews can go here!" went too far: that call had nothing to do with the quality of the singing lessons and served only to contribute, on illegitimate grounds, to the school's closure (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2019:494).

Two routes to the reviewer's identity

Anyone who wants to sue the reviewer must know who they are. The classic route runs through the Supreme Court's Lycos/Pessers judgment of 25 November 2005: a provider's refusal to disclose name and address details may breach the required standard of care where the possibility of unlawfulness and damage is sufficiently plausible, the applicant has a genuine interest, no less intrusive avenue exists and the balancing of interests falls in its favour (ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU4019). On that basis Interreal Group obtained data from Trustpilot at first instance in 2021 concerning reviews whose falsity was sufficiently established, including three glowing reviews about a service that had no customers at the time (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:2131).

Since 1 January 2025 the Section 194 DCCP route has run alongside it, with Section 195a DCCP for third parties that are not themselves party to the legal relationship. In June 2026 the Rotterdam District Court partly granted an application by Helder bij Letselschade against KPN. The name, address and email address of the subscriber behind an IP address had to be disclosed; the telephone number, bank details and subscription type fell outside the order. The alleged tort need not yet be established in those proceedings, but the scope of the application must be justified by its purpose (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:7699).

Both routes place demands on the evidence. Construction firm Casmond failed against Ziggo in 2016, because nothing supported the link between the email address, the IP address and the reviews complained of (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:348). The law firm foundered in 2025 on the requirement that a tort be substantiated for each individual username; positive reviews about a competitor cannot establish that legal relationship at all.

Anyone turning to Trustpilot faces an additional jurisdictional hurdle. In 2022 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that the choice of forum clause in the service subscription, giving the Copenhagen court exclusive jurisdiction, had been validly agreed through click-wrap acceptance. What remained was an order to preserve identifying data under Article 35 Brussels I bis, which lapsed if no proceedings on the merits were brought in Copenhagen within nine months (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:387).

What can a business do about a negative review?

Choose the defendant first. A claim against Google or Trustpilot demands manifest unlawfulness that the platform can establish without investigation, and that threshold is rarely met. Against the reviewer the court rules on the substance of the statement itself, and there almost half of the claims succeed.

Then substantiate the unlawfulness review by review, and build the case on facts the court can establish without taking evidence. Copied text, a stolen profile picture, a glowing review about a service that had not yet launched, a demonstrably incorrect amount: those are the building blocks that succeed in preliminary relief proceedings. The argument that a name is missing from the customer database succeeded in none of the decisions analysed, because publishing under a pseudonym is permitted.

Respond beneath the review as well. In the cases of Griebling, of Nova Incasso and of a supplier of printing equipment, the courts expressly weighed whether the business had that option and whether it had used it. Anyone offering a review function themselves stands on the other side of the same line: tour operator Vakanties.nl allowed reviews to be posted on its Zoover.nl platform without verifying in advance whether the accommodation had actually been visited. That amounted to an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Section 6:193g(z) DCC, after which the consumer validly annulled his €4,981.65 package travel contract (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:8825).

Finally, be careful with the tone of the letter before action. In the case of Beton Aparte against a consumer, the company's own letter, which characterised a negative review as defamatory and libellous and gave notice of liability, gave the court grounds to find that the accusation of being "threatening" rested on facts. The damages claim of €42,565.04 was dismissed and Beton Aparte paid the costs (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2024:6062).

Frequently asked questions

Must Google remove a review that breaches its own content policy?

No. Both the provisional relief judge in Lelystad and the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal held that a breach of Google's content moderation policy is separate from the question whether the review is unlawful as against the business. That policy is a house rule between Google and its users, and the business derives no right of action from it.

Is a review containing the word swindling unlawful?

Usually not. In the decisions analysed, courts generally read "swindling" and "fraud" as a dissatisfied customer's subjective value judgment. That changes where the reviewer describes a specific set of facts that demonstrably finds no support in the evidence; the characterisation has then become a factual assertion.

How is the identity of an anonymous reviewer established?

Along two routes. The classic route applies the four Lycos/Pessers criteria and is directed at the platform or the internet provider. Since 1 January 2025 the inspection application under Section 194 DCCP has been available alongside it, with Section 195a DCCP for third parties. Both require reasoned substantiation for each account or username.

Cited case law

Supreme Court

  • ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AU4019 (Lycos/Pessers), 25 November 2005: a hosting provider may act without due care by refusing to disclose the name and address details of an anonymous speaker, even where the information itself is not unmistakably unlawful.

Courts of appeal

  • ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:5138, 4 August 2026: "fraud" and "swindling" in a review are subjective value judgments rather than a manifestly unlawful factual accusation.
  • ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:2274, 26 August 2025: an order to keep an unlawful review removed may be backed by a penalty payment, provided the injunction is tied to the specific wording.
  • ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2022:387, 15 February 2022: a choice of forum clause for Copenhagen accepted by click wrapping deprives the Dutch court of jurisdiction; only preservation under Article 35 Brussels I bis remains.
  • ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:878, 28 April 2020: an injunction against unlawful reviews extends to reposting them.
  • ECLI:NL:GHARL:2019:494, 22 January 2019: critical posts remain within freedom of expression, but a call to leave one-star reviews is socially improper.

District courts

  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:7699, 24 June 2026: inspection under Sections 197, 196 and 194 DCCP against an internet provider is limited to the data needed to bring proceedings against the reviewer.
  • ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:3455, 17 April 2026: a series of negative reviews on different websites under different names goes beyond what is reasonable.
  • ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:18257, 1 July 2026: an unlawful sentence in a review does not give rise to damages without an established causal link.
  • ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3817, 30 March 2026: removal order granted in default, with an injunction confined to statements about the agreement concerned.
  • ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:59, 7 January 2026: removal requires a false representation of facts, reviews that do not reflect genuine experiences and no purpose other than to harm; an assessment of an uncertain situation does not meet that test.
  • ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:5657, 31 October 2025: a breach of Google's policy does not make a review unlawful as against the business; the test is applied review by review.
  • ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3760, 15 September 2025: a claim under Section 194 DCCP requires a tort to be made plausible for each individual username.
  • ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:4887, 9 September 2025: statements by a law firm demand greater care, but do not automatically cross the line.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:7729, 30 June 2025: where reviews have already been removed and no damage is particularised, the balance of interests favours the platform and its users.
  • ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:2737, 5 June 2025: a business that solicits reviews must in principle accept that some will be negative.
  • ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:9458, 28 May 2025: strong language in reviews about commercial conduct remains permissible where the reviewer explains the reason for the dissatisfaction.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:4473, 10 April 2025: a review that is largely accurate is not unlawful, even where it is harshly worded.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:4056, 31 March 2025: accusations of swindling and misleading conduct without a factual basis are unlawful; a factual negative review remains permitted.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:8825, 23 August 2024: a platform displaying reviews without reasonable verification steps commits an unfair commercial practice under Section 6:193g(z) DCC.
  • ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2024:6062, 11 September 2024: negative reviews on forums intended for that purpose, based on a personal experience, do not constitute a tort.
  • ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:6745, 27 September 2023: a party suspending payment until negative reviews are removed must prove that agreement.
  • ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2023:2690, 17 May 2023: criticism of commercial conduct is more readily permissible; a legal person cannot simply invoke Article 8 ECHR for its reputation.
  • ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2023:3113, 17 May 2023: the accusation that a lawyer has been bribed requires a sound factual basis; absent that, an injunction with rectification follows.
  • ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:2868, 28 May 2021: a party that itself mixes private and business matters in reviews invites a response that is correspondingly less readily unlawful.
  • ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:2131, 29 April 2021: removal of reviews that are not unmistakably unlawful is refused, while disclosure of identifying data is ordered where there are indications of fakery.
  • ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2021:636, 25 February 2021: reviews by family members are attributable to defendants only if they had a hand in them.
  • ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2020:6923, 24 December 2020: a businesslike review under an unfamiliar name is not unmistakably unlawful; the customer database is not conclusive proof.
  • ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:14372, 24 December 2020: where it is apparent to the reader that the parties disagree, unlawfulness is absent.
  • ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2020:4355, 7 December 2020: a single negative review among predominantly positive ones establishes no urgent interest absent concrete damage.
  • ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:4894, 8 October 2020: a party controlling reviews by family and friends who were never customers may be ordered to refrain from them.
  • ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2020:2626, 18 May 2020: factual characterisations in a review must be objectively tenable; fake profiles and demonstrably incorrect amounts lead to an injunction.
  • ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:2653, 22 May 2020: the use of a pseudonym and an offensive term do not in themselves make a review evidently unlawful.
  • ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2019:6021, 3 July 2019: reviews that find support in the facts remain permitted, whereas approaching the company's clients and employees is unlawful.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2019:1389, 21 February 2019: a value judgment about the security of a login method is no unlawful factual assertion.
  • ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2018:4589, 3 October 2018: self-written positive reviews under a false name are an artifice within the meaning of Section 3:44(3) DCC, but the causal link with the contract must be pleaded.
  • ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:7137, 16 August 2018: removal order granted in default, with an obligation to rectify and a penalty payment.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:370, 19 January 2018: unsubstantiated accusations of swindling are needlessly offensive; a blanket ban on mentioning the trade name goes too far.
  • ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:8063, 25 October 2017: the costs of preliminary relief proceedings against the platform are recoverable from the author of fake reviews; a pre-emptive ban on future statements is refused.
  • ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:348, 27 January 2016: disclosure of customer data by an access provider requires a substantiated link between account, IP address and the statements complained of.
  • ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:987, 29 February 2016: copied reviews and a fake portrait photograph are evidently unlawful; Google must remove them and disclose identifying data.
  • ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:9532, 17 December 2015: with a review it is clear to the reader that an opinion is being expressed; putting it strongly and exaggerating somewhat is permitted.

Disciplinary law

  • ECLI:NL:TADRARL:2025:234, 27 October 2025: a robustly worded letter before action against a reviewer is not objectionable where the history explains that tone.

Juriaan de Vries — lawyer at Prime Law, specialising in corporate and commercial litigation. See the disclaimer.

See also