How to stop reputational damage on the internet – a giant tined nose

In the trap of the digital hall of mirrors or in the digital pillory? Why a strong awareness of the risks and the legal framework, as well as the use of appropriate strategies, are essential to protect and strengthen reputation in the digital world?
By Maximilian Bausch in conversation with Dr. Thomas Schulte, a lawyer from Berlin.

How to Stop Reputational Damage on the Internet

Someone writes everywhere on the internet: ‘My cosmetic surgery with Dr. Müller went wrong. I have a giant nose!’ Now Dr. André Müller has a negative Google rating with this content. Dr. Müller previously had an impeccable reputation as a nose god. However, patients check Google reviews beforehand, and now no one wants to go under his knife.

What to do? A case for Dr. Thomas Schulte:
„Only successful entrepreneurs who want a better image come to Dr. Schulte.“
(Handelsblatt quote 2012 on internet reputation by Dr. Thomas Schulte)

A Good Reputation is More Precious Than Great Riches

A person’s reputation is inextricably linked to that person. The Bible already formulated this over 2,200 years ago in the Old Testament, Proverbs 22:1:
„A good name is more desirable than great riches, and favour rather than silver or gold.“

It is no wonder that a good reputation—one’s standing with other people—is a central theme in human history. It is only 150 years since a person’s reputation regularly led to duels. Honour was more important than death.

Today, the legal system is dealing with these issues, especially as the internet intensifies them. This article highlights key aspects, though strategies and legal advice are much more complex.

Reputation – What is it Anyway?

In the digital age, reputation is like visiting a hall of mirrors. Every click, every rating, and every comment creates a new image. The boundaries between reality and digital representation are blurring. Like in a labyrinth of mirrors, opinions and perceptions multiply, creating a complex and often opaque image of reputation.

Anonymity on the internet further complicates this by masking true intentions. For businesses and individuals, reputation has become a decisive factor.

Legal Challenges and Strategy – Expression of Opinion vs. Factual Claims

The German legal framework distinguishes between expressions of opinion, factual claims, and abusive criticism:

• Opinions: Protected under freedom of expression. Example: „I don’t think the hotel makes the best impression.“
• Factual Claims: Must be objectively verifiable. If false, they can be prosecuted for defamation. Example: „The hotel room was dirty upon arrival.“

Abusive Criticism

Statements with no factual core, aimed solely at vilifying a person, are illegal. Example: „This doctor is absolutely incompetent and a disgrace to his profession!“

Protecting Your Reputation Online

Monitoring Your Online Presence

Regular checks can help identify and address defamatory content early. Recommended tools include:

• Google Alerts: Get notified of mentions.
• Social Media Monitoring Tools: Hootsuite, Brandwatch, etc.

Targeted Responses to Harmful Content

1. Direct Contact: Approach platform operators or authors politely.
2. Legal Action: If necessary, file a warning for false claims.
3. Build Positive Reputation: Share achievements and encourage reviews.

Dealing with Cyberbullying and Hate Speech

For serious issues, consult legal experts. Many platforms also offer reporting mechanisms for quick removal of harmful content.

Legal Framework for Reputation Protection

The Digital Services Act (DSA)

From February 2024, the EU’s DSA will regulate digital platforms, including:

• Removing illegal content.
• Combating hate speech.
• Transparency in algorithms.

Host Providers and Their Obligations

Host providers like review platforms must act if illegal content is reported. Courts have ruled on their liability in landmark cases.

Key Case Studies

1. Doctor Rating Portals: Host providers are only liable if illegality is evident.
2. Insults on Facebook: Platforms must disclose user identities for serious violations.

Conclusion

In the digital age, managing your reputation is no longer optional. By monitoring your presence, leveraging legal frameworks, and building a strong positive image, individuals and businesses can protect their standing effectively.

How to stop reputational damage on the internet – a ‘giant finger’

In the trap of the digital hall of mirrors or in the digital pillory? Why a strong awareness of the risks and the legal framework, as well as the use of appropriate strategies, are essential to protect and strengthen reputation in the digital world? By Maximilian Bausch in conversation with Dr Thomas Schulte, a lawyer from Berlin.

What is it about? Someone writes everywhere on the internet: ‘My cosmetic surgery with Dr. Müller went wrong. I have a giant nose!’ Now Dr. André Müller has a negative Google rating with this content. Dr. Müller previously had an impeccable reputation as a nose god. However, patients check Google reviews beforehand, and now no one wants to go under his knife. What to do? A case for Dr Thomas Schulte: ‘Only successful entrepreneurs who want a better image come to Dr Schulte’ – (Handelsblatt quote 2012 on internet reputation by Dr Thomas Schulte)

A good reputation is more precious than great riches, and favour is better than silver or gold

A person’s reputation is inextricably linked to that person. The Bible already formulated this over 2,200 years ago in the Old Testament, Proverbs 22:1: ‘A good name is more desirable than great riches, and favour rather than silver or gold.’ It is therefore no wonder that a good reputation – one’s standing with other people – is a central theme in human history. It is only 150 years since a person’s reputation regularly led to duels. Honour was more important than death. If Dr Müller were to challenge the giant zinc-bearer to a duel and physically injure him, he would not only lose his medical licence, but would also face a prison sentence from the criminal court; in the worst case, he would lose his life. That is not the right way either.

Today, the legal system is also dealing with these issues. The internet has intensified these issues. Now we have several levels on the technical side, then the eternity claim (what is once on the internet remains there) and the possibility of anonymity for statements. On the other hand, the internet is of extreme importance to humanity as a second reality. This short article highlights some aspects and provides a rough overview. Strategy and legal advice is much more complex.

Reputation – what is it anyway?

In the digital age, reputation is like visiting a hall of mirrors. Every click, every rating and every comment creates a new image. The boundaries between reality and digital representation are blurring. Like in a labyrinth of mirrors, opinions and perceptions multiply, creating a complex and often opaque image of reputation. The anonymity of the internet intensifies this effect by giving the actors in the hall of mirrors masks and concealing their true intentions. An example from the Bavarian pub in Altdorf near Landshut at the regulars‘ table on Sundays at 11 a.m.: “It makes a difference whether a farmer with ten cows expresses his well-considered opinion or whether someone with three goats talks nonsense.” The farmer’s reputation is valued more highly than that of the goatherd. For a company, reputation is a decisive factor. In the past, the joke was told about AEG, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer: ‘AEG – Auspacken, Einschalten und geht nicht!’ (AEG – unpack, switch on and it doesn’t work!)

Reputation refers to the standing or the call of a person, group or organisation as perceived by third parties. Companies that prepare balance sheets must evaluate their reputation because it is an intangible asset. Consumer platforms such as Ciao.de, Tripadvisor or HolidayCheck or, in particular, Google My Business pose a danger because users can anonymously rate companies there, so to speak as a digital pillory with the danger of merciless exposure of private individuals and companies on the Internet. Like being put on display in a medieval pillory, a person’s reputation is put in the digital pillory and publicly defamed by negative reviews, false allegations and hate comments. The anonymity of the internet offers the ‘executioners’ protection and increases the powerlessness of the victims. This is precisely what is relevant for Dr. Müller with his cosmetic surgery.

In today’s digital world, the issue of reputation has taken on a whole new dimension. The internet has created a completely new reality in which the reputation of a person or a company can be influenced or even destroyed by just a few clicks. This ‘second reality’ of the internet is often inextricably linked with actual reality, and companies in particular can suffer considerable damage as a result of negative ratings or defamatory comments.

The laws regulating the internet can be summarised on a beer mat

This statement highlights the imbalance between the enormous influence of the internet on public opinion and the inadequate legal regulations designed to protect reputations.

Although the modern legal system has developed mechanisms to guarantee freedom of expression and the defence of one’s own honour, these regulations often reach their limits in the digital space. The internet knows no geographical boundaries, and once published, information can potentially remain there forever. In addition, anonymity on the internet often encourages users to behave like ‘drunken cowboys on the prairie’, as Dr Schulte vividly puts it. There is no obligation to use real names here, and content can often be spread unchecked and without responsibility.

Dr Schulte explains that with the advent of the internet a few decades ago, lawyers originally thought that this childishness would soon pass. No dangers were seen and there was no need for regulation. The existing press laws would be sufficient. Far from it: the internet is extremely powerful and dangerous.

Dr Schulte provides an overview of the challenges and legal bases for protecting reputations on the internet. In doing so, he discusses key questions regarding the legal handling of content that damages reputations, but also highlights strategic approaches that companies and private individuals can use to protect their reputations in the digital space.

Damage to reputation by third parties?

‘What reputation makes sense depends on the goals. The conquering king Genghis Khan needed a different reputation than a peace advocate like Mahatma Gandhi,’ says Dr Schulte. In many cases, reputation is damaged by statements made by third parties about the person or company.

Anyone who makes a statement about a third party – whether on the internet or in real life – may be speaking the truth or not, or they may be expressing an opinion. ‘It makes a significant difference whether a fact is asserted or an opinion,’ explains Schulte.

Untrue factual claims can cause significant reputational damage. Examples of this are defamation and libel. Such statements are not covered by freedom of expression and can be prosecuted under both civil and criminal law.

So the first question is whether the respective post is illegal at all. Only then can it be determined how to proceed against it, if necessary. There are two groups of cases to be distinguished in terms of illegality:

…misrepresent facts…

In the first variant, the posts contain facts. Facts are all circumstances that can be proven (for example: ‘Dr. Müller forgot a swab in my nose during my nose job’). Here it can be verified whether the information is false (for example: in fact it is only the patient’s imagination). If facts have been misrepresented, the posts are unlawful without question.

… or constitute abusive defamatory criticism

The second variant is more difficult to assess. Here the posts contain value judgements. Value judgements are statements that cannot be proven (e.g. ‘I think that Dr Müller did not take good care of me as a patient’).

Since freedom of speech is guaranteed in Germany – for good reasons – such value judgements are admissible and thus not unlawful. On the other hand, nobody has to put up with insults. Serious outbursts that no longer have any factual core (so-called abusive criticism) are unlawful expressions of opinion. In such cases, the protection of the human dignity of the person defamed takes precedence over freedom of expression. Whether a defamatory criticism is present must be clarified in each individual case. Since freedom of expression is a precious right, only a few formulations are covered by it. It depends on the personal insult and humiliation completely overshadowing the factual concern. ‘In such cases, legal advice can and must be sought,’ advises Dr. Schulte.

Legal basis and definition

The question of reputation and how to protect one’s reputation on the internet is legally complex. It requires a differentiated approach, since German law makes a clear distinction between different types of statements: expressions of opinion, factual claims and abusive criticism. These distinctions are essential in order to assess whether and how action can be taken against defamatory statements on the internet.

1. Expression of opinion and factual claim

In Germany, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 5 of the German Basic Law and enjoys a high level of protection. Opinions are subjective and express personal views or value judgements that cannot be verified objectively. An example of this would be the statement: ‘I don’t think the hotel makes the best impression.’ Such value judgements are generally permissible and protected by law – even if they are negative – as they are covered by freedom of expression.

In contrast to this are factual claims. These relate to objective facts and can be checked for their truthfulness. A factual claim could be, for example: ‘The hotel room was dirty upon arrival.’ If this claim is demonstrably false, it can be classified as defamatory and thus unlawful. This is where German law on the protection of reputation comes into play. Defamation or libel, which assert false facts, are not covered by freedom of expression and can be prosecuted under both civil (injunction and damages) and criminal law.

In this context, Dr Schulte emphasises: ‘The problem with the internet is that unchecked statements can be widely disseminated and often remain anonymous.’ In cases where the truth of factual claims is disputed, legal action can be taken to demand the deletion of such content or compensation.

1.1 Abusive criticism – when freedom of expression ends

Abusive criticism is a special case. Abusive criticism is a form of expression that crosses the line into defamation. The focus here is no longer on the discussion of an issue, but on the vilification of a person. An example could be: ‘This doctor is absolutely incompetent and a disgrace to his profession!’ Such statements have no factual core and are merely aimed at denigrating the person or company concerned.

In Germany, defamatory reviews are inadmissible and constitute an illegal expression of opinion. However, classifying a statement as defamatory criticism is often difficult and requires a precise examination of the individual case. In this context, case law weighs the interests of freedom of expression against the protection of the honour of the person concerned. Only a few particularly serious formulations are classified as defamatory criticism, since freedom of expression, as a fundamental right, enjoys a high level of protection. The Federal Constitutional Court has emphasised on several occasions that criticism, even if it is sharp and pointed, must be accepted in a democracy.

1.2 The legal framework for examining defamatory content

Every legal examination begins with the question of whether a statement constitutes an expression of opinion, a factual claim or abusive criticism. Only after this classification can it be decided whether legal action can be taken. The case of a doctor who felt that he had been harmed by an allegedly unjustified review on a ratings portal is illustrative: the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (judgment 5 U 117/21) ruled that the operator of a ratings portal is not obliged to check its users‘ ratings in advance. However, there is an obligation to check if the doctor raises justified doubts about the authenticity of the rating.

Dr Schulte explains that it is easier to determine the unlawfulness of factual claims, as these can be verified objectively. In contrast, the evaluation of value judgements remains complex and often requires judicial consideration. ‘Protecting honour on the internet is often a rocky road,’ says Dr Schulte. ‘The digital age has taken the classic legal distinction between facts and opinions into new and often difficult-to-understand dimensions.’

1.3 Criminal liability for negative reviews

Regardless of the civil law question of whether there is a right to the deletion of a negative review or statement on the internet, criminal law issues may also arise. In this context, the state investigates and, if necessary, imposes penalties against the author.

The first thing to consider here is the offence of defamation.

An insult according to § 185 StGB is present if someone expresses disrespect or disregard and had intent to do so. It can be an untrue factual claim against the bearer of honour or a value judgement against a third party.

If a fact is deliberately spread about a third party that is not demonstrably true, it may be defamation according to § 186 BGB.

If the perpetrator acts even against better knowledge regarding the untruthfulness of the assertion, a punishable defamation according to § 187 BGB would be given.

If a negative evaluation is threatened, this can even realise more serious criminal offences.

The statement ‘Do this, otherwise I will write a negative evaluation’ can constitute coercion in the sense of § 240 StGB.

If such a threat is also seen as a serious evil, which, according to case law, can also be seen in lawful behaviour (BGH 13 January 1983 – 1 StR 737/81), and if the perpetrator is also interested in the victim’s property, extortion under § 253 StGB is even a possibility. This can be punished with up to five years in prison.

Negative reviews can therefore be punishable. Insults (Section 185 StGB), false factual claims (defamation Section 186 StGB, slander Section 187 StGB) and threats to publish a negative review can be punished as coercion (Section 240 StGB) or extortion (Section 253 StGB).

2. Google as a search engine is of extreme importance

2.1 No entry because Google says so

Research shows that most people use the Google search engine for important decisions and trust the search results that the search engine throws up.

So if you want to invest a lot of money or are wondering how to classify a surgical procedure for a serious illness, you ask the search engine ‘Google’ and get the results. The Google search engine has a market share of 95 percent, which means that out of 20 queries, 19 end up on Google. In view of this, the importance of Google and also the legal framework for relevant decision-making processes is necessary for society. What, for example, about negative results, which then effectively amount to a business ban for the person concerned? How should the situation be assessed?

The internet never forgets anything; what is forbidden and negative remains present worldwide through digital archives, search engines and networked bloggers. The help of experts is often unavoidable to ensure that any legal violations can be quickly eliminated. Since, as in this case, the person concerned has already suffered considerable disadvantages, it is essential to consult a reputation support service for the internet in addition to ‘reputation management by law’ in order to prevent lasting damage to the digital image.

3. Technical features of the internet

Current legal situation and responsibilities on the internet

The regulation of the internet poses a particular challenge because content is often distributed across national borders and a large number of players are involved. German case law has endeavoured to create a fundamental distinction in the responsibilities of different service providers, namely between content providers, host providers and internet service providers. This differentiation is central to defining the area of responsibility of the respective actors for content distributed on the internet and to creating clear rules for dealing with content that is damaging to reputation or illegal.

3.1. Content providers – those responsible for their own content

In German law, the operator of a website or profile who creates and publishes his or her own content is referred to as a content provider. Dr Schulte explains: ‘A content provider is fully responsible for the content he or she publishes and must be aware that this content is legally verifiable.’ One example is the law firm website www.dr-schulte.de, which is operated by Dr Schulte and whose content is under his legal responsibility. Content providers are directly liable for all content that they themselves publish and must ensure that it does not violate any laws or personal rights.

3.2 Host providers – platforms and their obligations

Hosting providers provide storage space and technical infrastructure on which third-party content can be hosted. Examples include rating portals such as jameda.de, HolidayCheck or platforms such as YouTube. Hosting providers have what is known as ‘störerhaftung’ (Breach of Duty of Care), which means that under certain circumstances they can be held liable for content published by third parties on their platforms. However, this does not oblige hosting providers to check all content in advance.

However, case law has ruled that host providers have an obligation to check under certain conditions. A significant example is a ruling by the Munich Regional Court (Az. 25 O 1870/15), which determined that rating portals are obliged to verify the authenticity of a rating if a doctor expresses doubts about it and provides evidence. If a doctor complains and the rating platform receives concrete evidence that the review may not be based on a genuine treatment, the portal must take the necessary steps to ensure the authenticity of the review. If the host provider fails to do so, it can be held liable for the content that damages the reputation.

On the other hand, it should be noted that host providers do not have a general obligation to review all content. The Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (judgment 5 U 117/21) ruled that there is no general obligation to review the ratings as long as there are no reasonable indications of illegality. It was clearly stated here that host providers only have to take action after a specific notification from the person concerned, which in practice can often lead to long delays before illegal content is removed.

3.3. Internet providers – technical service providers without responsibility for content

Internet providers are technical service providers that enable access to the internet and do not store or distribute content themselves. These providers, such as telecommunications companies, merely provide the infrastructure for transmitting data and are therefore not responsible for the content distributed on their networks. Unlike content and host providers, internet providers have no legal obligation to check content, as they have no direct influence on the published content.

3.4 Case studies and rulings

A particularly vivid example of the responsibility of host providers can be seen in doctor rating portals, which have become the target of numerous legal disputes in recent years. Doctors and other service providers criticise the fact that negative ratings by fake patients are often published without much control and can cause considerable reputational damage. Dr Schulte describes this problem aptly: ‘Doctors often feel unfairly criticised by rating portals because the actual quality of treatment is usually assessed by proxy indicators such as friendliness or waiting times.’

A prominent case is the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken, in which a doctor felt that a negative review was unjust and asked the host provider to delete the review. However, since the doctor denied the existence of the patient as untruthful, the court ruled that the portal operator had no duty to review the matter if there was an obvious treatment relationship. The host provider’s responsibility is limited here and only takes effect if there is concrete evidence of an illegal review.

3.5 Legal challenges and protection gaps

The legal differentiation between content, host and internet providers often leads to uncertainties for those affected who want to defend themselves against defamatory content. Hosting providers such as rating portals that make a living from third-party content have limited responsibility due to the so-called ‘Stoererhaftung’ (Breach of Duty of Care), which often means that those affected must first prove, at great expense, that the content is illegal. The lack of a requirement to use real names on the internet makes it even more difficult to assign responsibility directly, often leaving those affected with no choice but to go through the platform operators to find out the identity of the perpetrator.

As Dr Schulte emphasises, these gaps in protection show the urgent need for further legal reform: ‘The structures of the internet are complex and difficult to grasp with traditional legal categories. The regulations of the analogue world often fall short of providing those affected in the digital space with the protection they need.’ A modern legal framework for the different provider roles could make a significant contribution to reputation protection on the internet.

Case law on the protection of online reputation has produced many important decisions in recent years that are considered to be precedents in the digital space. These rulings illustrate how courts protect the rights of those affected while also upholding freedom of expression. In the following, we present some case studies and rulings that illustrate the challenges of protecting reputation and personal rights on the internet.

4. Search engine obligations in German and European law

The European Digital Services Act (DSA): From 17 February 2024, the DSA will apply throughout the EU, and the rules for online services, including search engines, will be redefined. The DSA aims to make the internet safer and fairer by strengthening users‘ rights and creating a level playing field for companies. The main obligations include:

Protection against illegal content: Search engines must take measures to remove illegal content.

Reducing hate speech and disinformation: Mechanisms are needed to combat hate speech and disinformation.

Transparency of algorithms: Search engines must be more transparent about how their algorithms work.

Prohibition of dark patterns: Manipulative practices in the design of websites and apps are prohibited.

Establishing a point of contact and transparency reports: Search engines must establish an easily accessible point of contact for users and regularly publish transparency reports.

Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG): Before the DSA came into force, the NetzDG was in force in Germany, which already contains some regulations for large social network providers. However, it is important to note that the NetzDG was designed primarily for social networks and is not explicitly tailored to search engines.

Liability for reviews: The liability of search engines for reviews is a complex issue. In principle, search engines are not responsible for user-generated content. However, there are some exceptions:

Illegal content: If a review clearly violates the law, for example through defamation or libel, the search engine is obliged to remove it.

Violation of Google guidelines: A review can also be removed if it violates the search engine’s guidelines. This includes, among other things, spam, fake content or hate speech.

Duty of investigation: If a company objects to a review, the search engine must at least investigate. In some cases, it may be obliged to ask the reviewer for a statement or for evidence to support the review.

Competition law aspects: ratings can also raise competition law issues. It is, among other things, illegal to publish paid positive ratings in order to influence competition. Such practices are considered misleading advertising and can be subject to a cease-and-desist order.

Data protection: Search engines must protect user data and may only use it in accordance with data protection regulations. The publication of user data is only permissible in justified cases, for example if a court orders it.

Right to information: In certain cases, a data subject can demand that the search engine disclose the data of a user who has insulted or defamed them. However, this is only possible if the evaluation is clearly unlawful and the court confirms the right to information.

In summary, search engines have a number of obligations to ensure user protection, compliance with the law and fair competition. However, the exact obligations and liability rules are complex and vary from case to case. It is therefore advisable to seek expert legal advice.

4.1. Case study: doctor rating portals and the struggle for justice

Rating portals for doctors such as jameda.de or Google Reviews are of immense importance for the image of medical service providers. Since many patients make their decisions based on such ratings, negative comments can have a serious impact on patient flow and thus on the economic success of practices.

A case in point is the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (judgment 5 U 117/21). In this case, a doctor fought against a negative review that he considered unjust. Since the doctor considered the review to be incorrect and unjustified, he demanded that the portal operator delete the review. However, the portal operator refused to do so because the doctor was unable to unequivocally refute the evidence of a treatment relationship. The court ruled in favour of the portal and made it clear that there is no general obligation to verify. This means that host providers are only required to verify reviews if there is concrete evidence of illegality.

Dr Schulte explains: ‘For doctors, such reviews often pose a threat to their livelihood, as negative comments can be published without clear evidence of their authenticity. However, doctors must also stick to the facts and must not deny the treatment context.’ This ruling shows that the courts have to perform a difficult balancing act between protecting freedom of expression and the rights of those being evaluated.

4.2 Insults on Facebook: The case of the Green Party politician

Another example of reputation protection on the internet is the decision of the Berlin Court of Appeal in favour of a Green Party politician who was the victim of serious insults on Facebook. Anonymous users had insulted her in an extremely offensive manner and defamed her political activities. The politician sued for the publication of the data of the anonymous authors in order to be able to hold them legally responsible. In its decision of 31 October 2022 (case no. 10 W 13/20), the Berlin Court of Appeal ruled in her favour and ordered Facebook to disclose the identity of the authors.

This ruling is an important step in the fight against hate speech and shows that even platforms based abroad are obliged to disclose personal data if there are clear violations of personal rights. In this case, the courts explicitly pointed out that the protection of freedom of expression does not extend to the acceptance of criminal defamation. Dr Schulte comments: ‘The protection of honour remains a fundamental right even in the digital age, and the obligation to disclose data shows that data protection must take a back seat in cases of clear legal violations.’

4.3. Competition law and misleading seals: The example of “doctors” seals’

Another example of the protection of online reputation concerns the prohibition under competition law of misleading advertising by means of purchased ‘doctors’ seals’. A ruling by the Munich Regional Court (Az. 4 HKO 14545/21) dealt with the awarding of supposed quality seals to doctors in return for a considerable licence fee. A publishing house had offered doctors the ‘FOCUS RECOMMENDATION’ seal for a fee, which doctors could use on their websites and in advertisements. The court ruled that this practice is misleading because it gives the impression that the doctors have been distinguished on the basis of an objective quality assessment. In fact, however, the seals were based on a licence payment and not on an independent assessment.

This judgement makes it clear that the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) also applies in the digital space and is intended to protect consumers from deception. The case law on the UWG prohibits such seals because they undermine the credibility of the rating systems and mislead potential patients. Dr Schulte points out that such misleading awards can destroy a considerable amount of trust in the quality and objectivity of rating portals and seals.

4.4 European case law: liability for defamatory comments

A landmark judgment on reputation protection on the internet comes from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In a case from Estonia, the court ordered a news portal to pay damages to a ferry company that had been the victim of defamatory comments. In this judgment, the ECtHR ruled that the portal could be held liable for the comments of its users, even though the comments had been posted anonymously. The court reasoned that the portal had not implemented sufficient filtering mechanisms or effective moderation of comments.

This decision shows that international platforms can also be held liable if they fail to adequately fulfil their duty of protection. It sets an important precedent for the responsibility of platform operators across Europe. Dr Schulte explains: ‘This judgment by the ECtHR shows that the protection of personality and reputation also extends beyond national borders and that freedom of expression has limits where it seriously violates the rights of others.’

4.5. The Barbra Streisand effect: caution with countermeasures

In practice, it is not always easy to respond to defamatory or offensive content without attracting unwanted attention. The so-called Barbra Streisand effect describes the phenomenon whereby an attempt to remove content from the internet often has the opposite effect and results in it being shared more widely. This effect first occurred when the US singer Barbra Streisand tried to remove aerial photographs of her villa from the internet. The result was an enormous increase in the distribution of the images and an international media frenzy.

Dr Schulte warns against taking hasty legal action, as the Streisand effect can significantly increase the damage to reputation. In cases such as cyberbullying or defamation, it is therefore advisable to develop a clear strategy and, if necessary, to consider whether a direct reaction makes sense or could deepen the damage.

5. Practical measures for protecting online reputation

Protecting your reputation on the internet requires not only legal knowledge but also a proactive approach and targeted strategies to enable you to respond quickly to negative content or false allegations. Dr Thomas Schulte, an expert in reputation law, emphasises that companies and individuals should not leave their online reputation to chance. Instead, he recommends a combination of preventive measures and targeted responses to content that damages their reputation.

5.1. Monitoring your own reputation

One of the most effective measures for protecting your reputation is to regularly monitor your own online presence. Since defamatory content is often published unnoticed and can spread quickly, it is important that companies and individuals regularly check what is being said about them on the internet. There are various tools and services available for this purpose that are designed to search the web for new mentions of a name or company.

Recommended tools for reputation monitoring include:

• Google Alerts: Enables notifications to be sent when a name or key term is mentioned.
• Social media monitoring tools such as Hootsuite or Brandwatch: These provide a comprehensive overview of mentions on social networks and help you to respond immediately to critical posts.

Dr Schulte advises setting up a weekly review and appointing a member of staff to monitor reputation for companies. ‘If you become aware of negative content in good time, you can often take countermeasures early before the damage becomes irreparable,’ says Schulte.

5.2. Targeted responses to reputation-damaging content

Content that damages a reputation should not be combated rashly or emotionally. Instead, a clear strategy is needed to avoid the so-called Barbra Streisand effect, in which thoughtless countermeasures generate unwanted attention. Here are some important strategies:

• Direct contact: In many cases, a polite, factual approach to the platform operator or the author of a defamatory post can be enough to get the content removed.
• Mediation and amicable solutions: Particularly in the case of personal disputes, it can make sense to seek an amicable solution with the author. Negative reviews can often be resolved through constructive communication.
• Legal action: If content that damages a reputation clearly asserts false facts or constitutes a serious insult, a legal warning from a lawyer can be an effective measure. Dr Schulte recommends that this measure be used with caution and that the possible reactions be carefully weighed up.

5.3. Preventive measures: Building a positive reputation

One proactive measure for strengthening a reputation is to build a positive image online. This involves creating targeted content that presents the company or individual in a positive light. This can be achieved by regularly posting on social networks, sharing positive news and encouraging satisfied customer reviews.

It is advisable to use your own content, such as blog articles, videos or press releases, to convey a comprehensive picture of your strengths and successes. This strategy can help negative content, if it does appear, to be perceived in a more positive context. Optimising your website and your social media presence also plays an important role in this context.

5.4. dealing with cyberbullying and hate comments

Cyberbullying can be a serious problem, especially for public figures and companies with a wide reach. Hate comments can not only damage a person’s reputation, but also have a significant impact on their emotional well-being. Dr Schulte recommends in such cases that people carefully consider the extent to which the comment is truly damaging to their reputation and whether or not it makes sense to react. In serious cases, he advises consulting specialised advisors or lawyers.

It is also important to check the social networks for specific instructions on how to deal with hate comments. Many platforms now offer reporting functions so that insults or hate speech can be quickly reported and removed by the platform operators. These functions can provide quick and unbureaucratic help before further legal steps are necessary.

5.5 Professional support and legal advice

In particularly complex or difficult cases, it may be useful to seek professional support. Dr Schulte emphasises that legal advice is particularly necessary in cases of cyberbullying, defamation or libel. Lawyers specialising in media and internet law usually have extensive experience in dealing with the specifics of digital reputation damage and can choose the right strategy to protect the interests of those affected.

In addition, there are specialised service providers for online reputation management who can take on both the monitoring and the implementation of preventive measures. These experts can help to identify negative content and develop targeted countermeasures.

5.6 Conclusion

Protecting your reputation on the internet requires a careful approach and a comprehensive understanding of the legal and strategic options. Private individuals and companies can effectively protect their reputation in the digital space by regularly monitoring, deliberately building a positive online presence and reacting thoughtfully to content that damages their reputation. Dr Schulte summarises it this way: ‘In the digital age, reputation is no longer a product of chance. Those who actively manage their reputation are better able to counter the greatest risks of the digital world.’

1. Future developments and current legislative initiatives

The rapid progress of digitalisation and the ever-increasing importance of the internet as a platform for communication, opinion-forming and business activities has also led to a growing need for clear and enforceable rules in the area of reputation protection. The European Union has recognised this need for action and is working on new laws to promote transparency and accountability in the digital space. One of the most important legislative proposals is the Digital Services Act (DSA), which is intended to protect both platform operators and users and set clear standards for content moderation.

6.1 The Digital Services Act: overview and objectives

The Digital Services Act was developed by the European Commission to create a harmonised legal framework for the use of digital services in the EU. The aim of the DSA is to establish transparency requirements for digital platforms and to regulate their responsibility with regard to the distribution of content. In particular, this includes an obligation for platforms to quickly remove illegal content and to make the origin of such content traceable. A key point of the DSA is the introduction of transparency obligations for platforms that provide recommendations and ratings or host user-generated content.

This regulation is intended to better protect users from misleading or defamatory content, and to oblige platform operators to play a more active role in protecting their reputation. For example, larger platforms are expected to develop comprehensive mechanisms for content moderation and for removing illegal content and to report regularly on their procedures.

6.2. Liability and responsibility of platforms

A central point of the DSA is the liability regulation for platform operators. The regulation aims to ensure that platforms that disseminate user-generated content are held more accountable in the future. Unlike in the past, platform operators should not only react to user reports, but also introduce their own review mechanisms to proactively identify and remove potentially illegal content. This should prevent content that is defamatory or damaging to reputation from continuing to circulate unchecked on the internet.

The DSA also places new demands on host providers, i.e. platforms such as doctor rating portals or social media networks: host providers must ensure that they can forward user data to the relevant authorities in the event of criminally relevant content. This should make it easier to hold the perpetrators of offensive or false content accountable.

6.3. Consumer rights protection: The Unfair Competition Act (UWG)

At the national level, the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) protects consumers and companies in Germany from misleading business practices. The UWG ensures that consumer deception and misleading advertising – including on the internet – are punishable. It regulates, for example, the unauthorised use of quality seals, as was made clear in the judgement of the Munich Regional Court (Az. 4 HKO 14545/21) regarding the awarding of the ‘Doctors’ Seal’.

The UWG standard is a vivid example of how national legislation regulates the digital space and protects consumers from misleading practices. Through the obligation of transparency and the prohibition of deception, consumer rights are also protected in the digital space.

6.4. The role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) also plays an important role in reputation protection, as it obliges European member states to respect the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and thus to protect personal rights. A landmark judgment by the ECtHR regarding the liability of an Estonian news portal for offensive comments shows that platform operators can be held liable for hate comments posted by their users if they have not implemented adequate filter or moderation mechanisms.

This judgment has a signalling effect for other platforms in the EU, as it emphasises the obligation to review user-generated content and shows that personal rights can also take precedence over the anonymity of the author in the digital space. The ECtHR thus calls for a balance between freedom of expression and personal rights and strengthens reputation protection in the digital space.

6.5. Future challenges and open questions

Although the planned legislative initiatives and the rulings handed down so far represent significant progress in the area of reputation protection, numerous challenges remain. One of the key open questions is how a mandatory real name policy would affect the dissemination of defamatory content online. Opponents of such a policy argue that it could restrict freedom of expression, since people often wish to remain anonymous in political or social discourse.

• A person’s reputation is inextricably linked to that person. The Bible already formulated this over 2,200 years ago in the Old Testament, Proverbs 22:1: ‘A good name is more desirable than great riches, and favour rather than silver or gold.’ It is therefore no wonder that a good reputation – one’s standing with other people – is a central theme in human history. It is only 150 years since a person’s reputation regularly led to duels. Honour was more important than death. If Dr Müller were to challenge the giant zinc-bearer to a duel and physically injure him, he would not only lose his medical licence, but would also face a prison sentence from the criminal court; in the worst case, he would lose his life. That is not the right way either.
• Today, the legal system is also dealing with these issues. The internet has intensified these issues. Now we have several levels on the technical side, then the eternity claim (what is once on the internet remains there) and the possibility of anonymity for statements. On the other hand, the internet is of extreme importance to humanity as a second reality. This short article highlights some aspects and provides a rough overview. Strategy and legal advice is much more complex. Reputation – what is it anyway?In the digital age, reputation is like visiting a hall of mirrors. Every click, every rating and every comment creates a new image. The boundaries between reality and digital representation are blurring. Like in a labyrinth of mirrors, opinions and perceptions multiply, creating a complex and often opaque image of reputation. The anonymity of the internet intensifies this effect by giving the actors in the hall of mirrors masks and concealing their true intentions. An example from the Bavarian pub in Altdorf near Landshut at the regulars‘ table on Sundays at 11 a.m.: “It makes a difference whether a farmer with ten cows expresses his well-considered opinion or whether someone with three goats talks nonsense.” The farmer’s reputation is valued more highly than that of the goatherd. For a company, reputation is a decisive factor. In the past, the joke was told about AEG, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer: ‘AEG – Auspacken, Einschalten und geht nicht!’ (AEG – unpack, switch on and it doesn’t work!)Reputation refers to the standing or the call of a person, group or organisation as perceived by third parties. Companies that prepare balance sheets must evaluate their reputation because it is an intangible asset. Consumer platforms such as Ciao.de, Tripadvisor or HolidayCheck or, in particular, Google My Business pose a danger because users can anonymously rate companies there, so to speak as a digital pillory with the danger of merciless exposure of private individuals and companies on the Internet. Like being put on display in a medieval pillory, a person’s reputation is put in the digital pillory and publicly defamed by negative reviews, false allegations and hate comments. The anonymity of the internet offers the ‘executioners’ protection and increases the powerlessness of the victims. This is precisely what is relevant for Dr. Müller with his cosmetic surgery.

In Germany, defamatory reviews are inadmissible and constitute an illegal expression of opinion. However, classifying a statement as defamatory criticism is often difficult and requires a precise examination of the individual case. In this context, case law weighs the interests of freedom of expression against the protection of the honour of the person concerned. Only a few particularly serious formulations are classified as defamatory criticism, since freedom of expression, as a fundamental right, enjoys a high level of protection. The Federal Constitutional Court has emphasised on several occasions that criticism, even if it is sharp and pointed, must be accepted in a democracy.

1.2 The legal framework for examining defamatory content

Every legal examination begins with the question of whether a statement constitutes an expression of opinion, a factual claim or abusive criticism. Only after this classification can it be decided whether legal action can be taken. The case of a doctor who felt that he had been harmed by an allegedly unjustified review on a ratings portal is illustrative: the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (judgment 5 U 117/21) ruled that the operator of a ratings portal is not obliged to check its users‘ ratings in advance. However, there is an obligation to check if the doctor raises justified doubts about the authenticity of the rating.

Dr Schulte explains that it is easier to determine the unlawfulness of factual claims, as these can be verified objectively. In contrast, the evaluation of value judgements remains complex and often requires judicial consideration. ‘Protecting honour on the internet is often a rocky road,’ says Dr Schulte. ‘The digital age has taken the classic legal distinction between facts and opinions into new and often difficult-to-understand dimensions.’

1.3 Criminal liability for negative reviews

Regardless of the civil law question of whether there is a right to the deletion of a negative review or statement on the internet, criminal law issues may also arise. In this context, the state investigates and, if necessary, imposes penalties against the author.

The first thing to consider here is the offence of defamation.

An insult according to § 185 StGB is present if someone expresses disrespect or disregard and had intent to do so. It can be an untrue factual claim against the bearer of honour or a value judgement against a third party.

If a fact is deliberately spread about a third party that is not demonstrably true, it may be defamation according to § 186 BGB.

If the perpetrator acts even against better knowledge regarding the untruthfulness of the assertion, a punishable defamation according to § 187 BGB would be given.

If a negative evaluation is threatened, this can even realise more serious criminal offences.

The statement ‘Do this, otherwise I will write a negative evaluation’ can constitute coercion in the sense of § 240 StGB.

If such a threat is also seen as a serious evil, which, according to case law, can also be seen in lawful behaviour (BGH 13 January 1983 – 1 StR 737/81), and if the perpetrator is also interested in the victim’s property, extortion under § 253 StGB is even a possibility. This can be punished with up to five years in prison.

Negative reviews can therefore be punishable. Insults (Section 185 StGB), false factual claims (defamation Section 186 StGB, slander Section 187 StGB) and threats to publish a negative review can be punished as coercion (Section 240 StGB) or extortion (Section 253 StGB).

One example is the law firm website www.dr-schulte.de, which is operated by Dr Schulte and whose content is under his legal responsibility. Content providers are directly liable for all content that they themselves publish and must ensure that it does not violate any laws or personal rights.3.2 Host providers – platforms and their obligations

Hosting providers provide storage space and technical infrastructure on which third-party content can be hosted. Examples include rating portals such as jameda.de, HolidayCheck or platforms such as YouTube. Hosting providers have what is known as ‘störerhaftung’ (Breach of Duty of Care), which means that under certain circumstances they can be held liable for content published by third parties on their platforms. However, this does not oblige hosting providers to check all content in advance.

However, case law has ruled that host providers have an obligation to check under certain conditions. A significant example is a ruling by the Munich Regional Court (Az. 25 O 1870/15), which determined that rating portals are obliged to verify the authenticity of a rating if a doctor expresses doubts about it and provides evidence. If a doctor complains and the rating platform receives concrete evidence that the review may not be based on a genuine treatment, the portal must take the necessary steps to ensure the authenticity of the review. If the host provider fails to do so, it can be held liable for the content that damages the reputation.On the other hand, it should be noted that host providers do not have a general obligation to review all content. The Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (judgment 5 U 117/21) ruled that there is no general obligation to review the ratings as long as there are no reasonable indications of illegality. It was clearly stated here that host providers only have to take action after a specific notification from the person concerned, which in practice can often lead to long delays before illegal content is removed.3.3. Internet providers – technical service providers without responsibility for content

Internet providers are technical service providers that enable access to the internet and do not store or distribute content themselves. These providers, such as telecommunications companies, merely provide the infrastructure for transmitting data and are therefore not responsible for the content distributed on their networks. Unlike content and host providers, internet providers have no legal obligation to check content, as they have no direct influence on the published content.3.4 Case studies and rulings

A particularly vivid example of the responsibility of host providers can be seen in doctor rating portals, which have become the target of numerous legal disputes in recent years. Doctors and other service providers criticise the fact that negative ratings by fake patients are often published without much control and can cause considerable reputational damage. Dr Schulte describes this problem aptly: ‘Doctors often feel unfairly criticised by rating portals because the actual quality of treatment is usually assessed by proxy indicators such as friendliness or waiting times.’

A prominent case is the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken, in which a doctor felt that a negative review was unjust and asked the host provider to delete the review. However, since the doctor denied the existence of the patient as untruthful, the court ruled that the portal operator had no duty to review the matter if there was an obvious treatment relationship. The host provider’s responsibility is limited here and only takes effect if there is concrete evidence of an illegal review.

3.5 Legal challenges and protection gaps The legal differentiation between content, host and internet providers often leads to uncertainties for those affected who want to defend themselves against defamatory conten

Hosting providers such as rating portals that make a living from third-party content have limited responsibility due to the so-called ‘Stoererhaftung’ (Breach of Duty of Care), which often means that those affected must first prove, at great expense, that the content is illegal. The lack of a requirement to use real names on the internet makes it even more difficult to assign responsibility directly, often leaving those affected with no choice but to go through the platform operators to find out the identity of the perpetrator.

As Dr Schulte emphasises, these gaps in protection show the urgent need for further legal reform: ‘The structures of the internet are complex and difficult to grasp with traditional legal categories. The regulations of the analogue world often fall short of providing those affected in the digital space with the protection they need.’ A modern legal framework for the different provider roles could make a significant contribution to reputation protection on the internet.

Case law on the protection of online reputation has produced many important decisions in recent years that are considered to be precedents in the digital space. These rulings illustrate how courts protect the rights of those affected while also upholding freedom of expression. In the following, we present some case studies and rulings that illustrate the challenges of protecting reputation and personal rights on the internet.

1. Search engine obligations in German and European law

The European Digital Services Act (DSA): From 17 February 2024, the DSA will apply throughout the EU, and the rules for online services, including search engines, will be redefined. The DSA aims to make the internet safer and fairer by strengthening users‘ rights and creating a level playing field for companies. The main obligations include:

Protection against illegal content: Search engines must take measures to remove illegal content.

Reducing hate speech and disinformation: Mechanisms are needed to combat hate speech and disinformation.

Transparency of algorithms: Search engines must be more transparent about how their algorithms work.

Prohibition of dark patterns: Manipulative practices in the design of websites and apps are prohibited.

Establishing a point of contact and transparency reports: Search engines must establish an easily accessible point of contact for users and regularly publish transparency reports.

Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG): Before the DSA came into force, the NetzDG was in force in Germany, which already contains some regulations for large social network providers. However, it is important to note that the NetzDG was designed primarily for social networks and is not explicitly tailored to search engines.

Liability for reviews: The liability of search engines for reviews is a complex issue. In principle, search engines are not responsible for user-generated content. However, there are some exceptions:

Illegal content: If a review clearly violates the law, for example through defamation or libel, the search engine is obliged to remove it.

Violation of Google guidelines: A review can also be removed if it violates the search engine’s guidelines. This includes, among other things, spam, fake content or hate speech.

Duty of investigation: If a company objects to a review, the search engine must at least investigate. In some cases, it may be obliged to ask the reviewer for a statement or for evidence to support the review.

Competition law aspects: ratings can also raise competition law issues. It is, among other things, illegal to publish paid positive ratings in order to influence competition. Such practices are considered misleading advertising and can be subject to a cease-and-desist order.

Data protection: Search engines must protect user data and may only use it in accordance with data protection regulations. The publication of user data is only permissible in justified cases, for example if a court orders it.

Right to information: In certain cases, a data subject can demand that the search engine disclose the data of a user who has insulted or defamed them. However, this is only possible if the evaluation is clearly unlawful and the court confirms the right to information.

In summary, search engines have a number of obligations to ensure user protection, compliance with the law and fair competition. However, the exact obligations and liability rules are complex and vary from case to case. It is therefore advisable to seek expert legal advice.

4.1 Case study: doctor rating portals and the fight for justice

Rating portals for doctors such as jameda.de or Google Reviews have an immense significance for the image of medical service providers. Since many patients make their decisions based on such ratings, negative comments can have a serious impact on patient flow and thus the economic success of practices.

A case in point is the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Saarbrücken (judgment 5 U 117/21). In this case, a doctor fought against a negative review that he considered unjust. Since the doctor considered the review to be incorrect and unjustified, he demanded that the portal operator delete the review.

However, the portal operator refused to do so because the doctor was unable to unequivocally refute the evidence of a treatment relationship. The court ruled in favour of the portal and made it clear that there is no general obligation to verify. This means that host providers are only required to verify reviews if there is concrete evidence of illegality.

Dr Schulte explains: ‘For doctors, such reviews often pose a threat to their livelihood, as negative comments can be published without clear evidence of their authenticity. However, doctors must also stick to the facts and must not deny the treatment context.’ This ruling shows that the courts have to perform a difficult balancing act between protecting freedom of expression and the rights of those being evaluated.

4.2. Insults on Facebook: The case of the Green Party politician

Another example of reputation protection on the internet is the decision of the Berlin Court of Appeal in favour of a Green Party politician who was the victim of serious insults on Facebook. Anonymous users had insulted her in an extremely offensive manner and defamed her political activities. The politician sued for the release of the data of the anonymous authors in order to be able to hold them legally responsible. In its decision of 31 October 2022 (case no. 10 W 13/20), the Berlin Court of Appeal ruled in her favour and ordered Facebook to disclose the identity of the authors.

This ruling is an important step in the fight against hate speech and shows that even platforms based abroad are obliged to disclose personal data if there are clear violations of personal rights.

In this case, the courts explicitly pointed out that the protection of freedom of expression does not extend to the acceptance of criminal defamation. Dr Schulte comments: ‘The protection of honour remains a fundamental right even in the digital age, and the obligation to disclose data shows that data protection must take a back seat in cases of clear legal violations.’

4.3. Competition law and misleading seals: The example of “doctors” seals’

Another example of the protection of online reputation concerns the prohibition under competition law of misleading advertising by means of purchased ‘doctors’ seals’. A ruling by the Munich Regional Court (Az. 4 HKO 14545/21) dealt with the awarding of supposed quality seals to doctors in return for a considerable licence fee. A publishing house had offered doctors the ‘FOCUS RECOMMENDATION’ seal for a fee, which doctors could use on their websites and in advertisements. The court ruled that this practice is misleading because it gives the impression that the doctors have been distinguished on the basis of an objective quality assessment. In fact, however, the seals were based on a licence payment and not on an independent assessment.

This judgement makes it clear that the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) also applies in the digital space and is intended to protect consumers from deception. The case law on the UWG prohibits such seals because they undermine the credibility of the rating systems and mislead potential patients. Dr Schulte points out that such misleading awards can destroy a considerable amount of trust in the quality and objectivity of rating portals and seals.

4.4 European case law: liability for defamatory comments

A landmark judgment on reputation protection on the internet comes from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In a case from Estonia, the court ordered a news portal to pay damages to a ferry company that had been the victim of defamatory comments. In this judgment, the ECtHR ruled that the portal could be held liable for the comments of its users, even though the comments had been posted anonymously. The court reasoned that the portal had not implemented sufficient filtering mechanisms or effective moderation of comments.

This decision shows that international platforms can also be held liable if they fail to adequately fulfil their duty of protection. It sets an important precedent for the responsibility of platform operators across Europe.

Dr Schulte explains: ‘This judgment by the ECtHR shows that the protection of personality and reputation also extends beyond national borders and that freedom of expression has limits where it seriously violates the rights of others.’

4.5. The Barbra Streisand effect: caution with countermeasures

In practice, it is not always easy to respond to defamatory or offensive content without attracting unwanted attention.

The so-called Barbra Streisand effect describes the phenomenon whereby an attempt to remove content from the internet often has the opposite effect and results in it being shared more widely. This effect first occurred when the US singer Barbra Streisand tried to remove aerial photographs of her villa from the internet. The result was an enormous increase in the distribution of the images and an international media frenzy.

Dr Schulte warns against taking hasty legal action, as the Streisand effect can significantly increase the damage to reputation. In cases such as cyberbullying or defamation, it is therefore advisable to develop a clear strategy and, if necessary, to consider whether a direct reaction makes sense or could deepen the damage.

5. Practical measures for protecting online reputation

Protecting your reputation on the internet requires not only legal knowledge but also a proactive approach and targeted strategies to enable you to respond quickly to negative content or false allegations. Dr Thomas Schulte, an expert in reputation law, emphasises that companies and individuals should not leave their online reputation to chance. Instead, he recommends a combination of preventive measures and targeted responses to content that damages their reputation.

5.1. Monitoring your own reputation

One of the most effective measures for protecting your reputation is to regularly monitor your own online presence. Since defamatory content is often published unnoticed and can spread quickly, it is important that companies and individuals regularly check what is being said about them on the internet. There are various tools and services available for this purpose that are designed to search the web for new mentions of a name or company.

Recommended tools for reputation monitoring include:

• Google Alerts: Enables notifications to be sent when a name or key term is mentioned.
• Social media monitoring tools such as Hootsuite or Brandwatch: These provide a comprehensive overview of mentions on social networks and help you to respond immediately to critical posts.

Dr Schulte advises setting up a weekly review and appointing a member of staff to monitor reputation for companies. ‘If you become aware of negative content in good time, you can often take countermeasures early before the damage becomes irreparable,’ says Schulte.

5.2. Targeted responses to reputation-damaging content

Content that damages a reputation should not be combated rashly or emotionally. Instead, a clear strategy is needed to avoid the so-called Barbra Streisand effect, in which thoughtless countermeasures generate unwanted attention. Here are some important strategies:

• Direct contact: In many cases, a polite, factual approach to the platform operator or the author of a defamatory post can be enough to get the content removed.
• Mediation and amicable solutions: Particularly in the case of personal disputes, it can make sense to seek an amicable solution with the author. Negative reviews can often be resolved through constructive communication.
• Legal action: If content that damages your reputation clearly asserts false facts or constitutes a serious insult, a legal warning can be an effective measure. Dr Schulte recommends that this measure be used with caution and that the possible reactions be carefully weighed.

5.3 Preventive measures: Building a positive reputation

One proactive measure for strengthening a reputation is to build a positive image online. This involves creating content that presents your company or yourself in a positive light. You can achieve this by regularly posting on social networks, sharing positive news and encouraging satisfied customers to write reviews.

It is advisable to use your own content, such as blog articles, videos or press releases, to convey a comprehensive picture of your strengths and successes. This strategy can help negative content, if it does appear, to be perceived in a more positive context. Optimising your website and your social media presence also plays an important role in this context.

5.4. dealing with cyberbullying and hate comments

Cyberbullying can be a serious problem, especially for public figures and companies with a wide reach. Hate comments can not only damage a person’s reputation, but also have a significant impact on their emotional well-being. Dr Schulte recommends in such cases that people carefully consider the extent to which the comment is truly damaging to their reputation and whether or not it makes sense to react. In serious cases, he advises consulting specialised advisors or lawyers.

It is also important to check the social networks for specific instructions on how to deal with hate comments. Many platforms now offer reporting functions so that insults or hate speech can be quickly reported and removed by the platform operators. These functions can provide quick and unbureaucratic help before further legal steps are necessary.

5.5 Professional support and legal advice

In particularly complex or difficult cases, it may be useful to seek professional support. Dr Schulte emphasises that legal advice is particularly necessary in cases of cyberbullying, defamation or libel. Lawyers specialising in media and internet law usually have extensive experience in dealing with the specifics of digital reputation damage and can choose the right strategy to protect the interests of those affected.

In addition, there are specialised service providers for online reputation management who can take on both the monitoring and the implementation of preventive measures. These experts can help to identify negative content and develop targeted countermeasures.

5.6 Conclusion

Protecting your reputation on the internet requires a careful approach and a comprehensive understanding of the legal and strategic options. Private individuals and companies can effectively protect their reputation in the digital space by regularly monitoring, deliberately building a positive online presence and reacting thoughtfully to content that damages their reputation. Dr Schulte summarises it this way: ‘In the digital age, reputation is no longer a product of chance. Those who actively manage their reputation are better able to counter the greatest risks of the digital world.’

6. Future developments and current legislative initiatives

The rapid progress of digitalisation and the ever-increasing importance of the internet as a platform for communication, opinion-forming and business activities has also led to a growing need for clear and enforceable rules in the area of reputation protection. The European Union has recognised this need for action and is working on new laws to promote transparency and accountability in the digital space. One of the most important legislative proposals is the Digital Services Act (DSA), which is intended to protect both platform operators and users and set clear standards for content moderation.

6.1 The Digital Services Act: overview and objectives

The Digital Services Act was developed by the European Commission to create a harmonised legal framework for the use of digital services in the EU. The aim of the DSA is to establish transparency requirements for digital platforms and to regulate their responsibility with regard to the distribution of content. In particular, this includes an obligation for platforms to quickly remove illegal content and to make the origin of such content traceable. A key point of the DSA is the introduction of transparency obligations for platforms that provide recommendations and ratings or host user-generated content.

This regulation is intended to better protect users from misleading or defamatory content, and to oblige platform operators to play a more active role in protecting their reputation. For example, larger platforms are expected to develop comprehensive mechanisms for content moderation and for removing illegal content and to report regularly on their procedures.

6.2. Liability and responsibility of platforms

A central point of the DSA is the liability regulation for platform operators. The regulation aims to ensure that platforms that disseminate user-generated content are held more accountable in the future. Unlike in the past, platform operators should not only react to user reports, but also introduce their own review mechanisms to proactively identify and remove potentially illegal content. This should prevent content that is defamatory or damaging to reputation from continuing to circulate unchecked on the internet.

The DSA also places new demands on host providers, i.e. platforms such as doctor rating portals or social media networks: host providers must ensure that they can forward user data to the relevant authorities in the event of criminally relevant content. This should make it easier to hold the perpetrators of offensive or false content accountable.

6.3. Consumer rights protection: The Unfair Competition Act (UWG)

At the national level, the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) protects consumers and companies in Germany from misleading business practices. The UWG ensures that consumer deception and misleading advertising – including on the internet – are punishable. It regulates, for example, the unauthorised use of quality seals, as was made clear in the judgement of the Munich Regional Court (Az. 4 HKO 14545/21) regarding the awarding of the ‘Doctors’ Seal’.

The UWG standard is a vivid example of how national legislation regulates the digital space and protects consumers from misleading practices. Through the obligation of transparency and the prohibition of deception, consumer rights are also protected in the digital space.

6.4. The role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) also plays an important role in reputation protection, as it obliges European member states to respect the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and thus to protect personal rights. A landmark judgment by the ECtHR regarding the liability of an Estonian news portal for offensive comments shows that platform operators can be held liable for hate comments posted by their users if they have not implemented adequate filter or moderation mechanisms.

This judgment has a signalling effect for other platforms in the EU, as it emphasises the obligation to review user-generated content and shows that personal rights can also take precedence over the anonymity of the author in the digital space. The ECtHR thus calls for a balance between freedom of expression and personal rights and strengthens reputation protection in the digital space.

6.5. Future challenges and open questions

Although the planned legislative initiatives and the rulings handed down so far represent significant progress in the area of reputation protection, numerous challenges remain. One of the key open questions is how a mandatory real name policy would affect the dissemination of defamatory content online. Opponents of such a policy argue that it could restrict freedom of expression, since people often wish to remain anonymous in political or social discourse. Proponents, on the other hand, see the requirement to use real names as an effective means of reducing insults and defamation.

Another problem is the patchy international enforcement. Since many platforms are based outside the EU, the implementation of European court rulings is often difficult. New mechanisms are needed here to ensure that foreign platforms also comply with EU law.

6.6 Conclusion and outlook

Developments in the area of digital reputation protection show that lawmakers are responding to the challenges of the digital world and introducing new protective measures. The planned changes at the EU level with the Digital Services Act, as well as national legislation such as the UWG, offer consumers and companies more transparency and protection against defamatory content. At the same time, the ECtHR ensures that international human rights standards also apply in the digital space.

Dr Schulte concludes with an assessment of the current situation: ‘The digital space is developing rapidly, and it is crucial that legislation keeps pace. Only with clear and enforceable laws can we ensure that people’s rights and dignity are respected online as well.’

7. Summary and Conclusion

Protecting reputation online is more important now than ever before, as the digital environment brings unparalleled opportunities but also significant risks for individuals and businesses. In a world where information is spread at lightning speed and archived for long periods of time, a damaging statement or ill-considered review can have drastic and lasting consequences. The legal framework that has been created in Germany and the EU to protect online reputation is an attempt to safeguard the rights of those affected without disproportionately restricting freedom of expression.

7.1. Relevance and challenges of reputation protection

As the case studies analysed have shown, important regulations already exist in Germany and the EU that promote reputation protection. By distinguishing between expressions of opinion, factual claims and abusive criticism, case law ensures that both the right to freedom of expression and the protection of personal honour are taken into account. Clear liability rules have been developed for content that damages reputation on rating portals, social networks and other platforms, which hold content, host and internet providers accountable.

7.2. Importance of the Digital Services Act and the UWG

With the Digital Services Act, the EU has created an important basis for the future responsibility of platforms. The transparency and auditing obligations for platforms and host providers enshrined in the DSA promise better protection against defamatory content and offer those affected new legal options for taking action against misinformation and defamatory content. This is supplemented by national regulations such as the Unfair Competition Act (UWG), which also strengthens consumer protection in the digital space and prohibits consumer deception.

7.3 Outlook and recommendations

Digital reputation protection faces numerous challenges that require constant legislative development. The ongoing debates about a possible obligation to use real names and the international challenges in enforcing national laws make it clear that the legal landscape of the Internet continues to change. While European regulations such as the DSA promote greater control and transparency, the question remains as to how international platforms can be effectively held accountable.

Dr Thomas Schulte emphasises the importance of active reputation management: ‘Protecting your reputation should never be left to chance. Regularly monitoring your online presence and pursuing a well-thought-out strategy for dealing with content that damages your reputation can protect you and your company from serious long-term damage.’

7.4. Conclusion

In the digital age, reputation is a valuable asset and presents new challenges for both companies and individuals. Legal developments in the area of reputation protection show that legislators have recognised the risks of the internet and are increasingly trying to create a balanced framework. The measures at the EU level, the growing number of judgments on the protection of online reputation, and the increasing importance of reputation management show that this area will continue to gain relevance in the coming years.

Only through a clear legal basis, as sought by the Digital Services Act, and proactive reputation management can individuals and companies ensure that their rights are respected and protected in the digital world.

Author: Maximilian Bausch, B.Sc. Industrial Engineer