What the service includes
A company’s business reputation is an asset that is hard to value until it is hit: a false review, a commissioned publication, the spread of claims about financial problems that do not in fact exist. For a business where the decision on a deal or a partnership is often made on the strength of reputation, the consequences are felt quickly.
We work under Article 152 of the Civil Code: refuting false defamatory statements, removing publications and obtaining compensation for reputational harm. We act both out of court and in court, including disputes with anonymous sources and review aggregators.
We also deal separately with cases where defamatory statements are spread through review sites and aggregators that refuse to moderate content without a court decision. In such cases a pre-trial claim letter to the platform is often more effective than a direct claim in court against an anonymous author.
What the service includes:
Who it is for
The situations clients most often bring to us on this topic.
How we work
A fixed fee and a clear plan of action, agreed before work begins. The timeframes below are indicative and depend on the complexity of the case.
Recording and assessment
We record the publication (a notarial protocol of inspection of the website) and assess whether it gives legal grounds for protection, namely that the statements are false and defamatory. Timeframe: 1-3 days.
Pre-trial claim letter
We send a demand for a retraction or removal of the publication to the author, the editorial office or the platform owner. Timeframe: one week.
Identifying the source
For an anonymous publication, we seek disclosure of the author’s details through the platform owner or the hosting provider. Timeframe: 2-4 weeks.
Court protection
If the out-of-court demand is refused, we pursue a retraction and compensation for harm through the court. Timeframe: 3-6 months.
What you will need at the start
We confirm the exact list for your situation at the consultation. This is a guide so that you arrive at the first meeting prepared.
Key figures
Experience in this practice area specifically, not in practice as a whole.
Common mistakes
The publication was not recorded in time. The author deletes the post a day after the complaint, and without a notarial protocol of inspection it is almost impossible to prove the content of the publication in court.
Trying to challenge a value judgment as a statement of fact. A claim against an author for the phrase “I did not like it” is almost certain to fail: the law protects opinions, not only facts.
Suing directly instead of sending a claim letter to the platform. Review sites and aggregators are often ready to remove a publication on a claim letter without a court, which is faster than waiting for a judgment against an anonymous author.
What you get
Refutation or removal of the publication. False statements are taken down from the platform or accompanied by an official refutation.
Compensation for reputational harm. Where there are grounds, we pursue monetary compensation from the author of the publication.
An evidence base for future disputes. Materials recorded by a notary remain with the client even after the publication is removed.
An end to a systematic campaign. In a targeted attack by a competitor, we aim not for a one-off removal but for stopping the practice altogether.
Related
Frequently asked questions
Can any negative review be challenged as damaging to business reputation?+
No. Only false statements can be challenged. A subjective opinion (“I did not like the service”) is protected by law as freedom of expression, whereas assertions of fact that do not correspond to reality are another matter.
Can an anonymous post be removed?+
Yes: by a demand to the owner of the platform or the hosting provider, and where necessary through the court, followed by identifying the author in order to recover compensation.
How is the amount of compensation for reputational harm assessed?+
The court considers the nature and scale of the dissemination and how far the statements affected the company’s reputation. The exact amount is hard to predict in advance, but practice in similar cases gives a guide.
What should we do if a competitor is spreading defamatory statements?+
Besides protection of business reputation under Article 152 of the Civil Code, such conduct may also be classed as unfair competition. We examine both grounds at the same time.
Does Article 152 of the Civil Code apply to companies, and not only to individuals?+
Yes, legal entities are expressly protected by this article. A company’s business reputation is protected by the same mechanisms as an individual’s reputation, except for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Can reputational harm be recovered if the post has already been removed?+
Yes. Voluntary removal of a post does not rule out a claim for compensation for harm caused while it was online.