No chance of success – no costs
First, we check whether the rating is illegal. Costs incurre only if we remove it – if not, our advice is completely free of charge!
High Success Rate:
As a rule, Google reacts immediately to our input. Our success rate in deleting Google reviews is over 85%.
Better Ranking &
Help your website get better search results. Both positive and negative reviews are an important ranking factor for Google.
You send us your data. We check the legality of the reviews free of charge.
We usually contact you on the same day with a proposal for a campaign tailored to your needs.
We’ll get started and initiate the deletion of the reviews while we keep you informed about the status.
Removal of Reviews – Legal Basis
The basis of your cancellation claim
- A violation of the guidelines of the portal and
- A violation of your general right to privacy
Companies can also invoke general personal rights. The corporate reputation in the public is protected (BGH, judgment of July 28, 2015, Az. VI ZR 340/14).
Reviews violate general privacy rights if they meet the following requirements
- false statements of fact,
- Insults or
- Abusive criticism
Typical illegal reviews
1-star ratings with no text
An evaluation can also be challenged if the missing actual points of contact for the evaluation are questionable. The expression of opinion or the 1 * rating without text on rating portals regularly contains the factual assertion that such points of contact exist, for example through a treatment contact or a customer contact. Specifically, this means that all reviews can be attacked for which such customer contact is uncertain. In the vast majority of cases, a deletion request formulated by a lawyer then also leads to the deletion of the evaluation. If it is unclear whether there was such contact with the evaluator, the evaluation should always be attacked. Because the platform operator bears the burden of proof that such contact has taken place. If the statement is disputed, the platform operator must initiate a test procedure to delete the rating. If he refuses, he is liable for omission. In this case, there is also a claim for reimbursement against the platform operator for reimbursement of the legal fees.
Reviews with unknown patients or customers
If you cannot check whether the reviewer is a customer or patient, or at least whether contact has been made, despite a given name, you can attack the review. Even in the case of a permissible negative evaluation, this contains the factual assertion that such a contact is the basis. In the event of a complaint, the platform operator must itself prove that there was such contact between the rated and the assessor. He is subject to inspection obligations! Google, for example, can only meet the test requirements by initiating a corresponding procedure. Very often the identity cannot be clarified due to the lack of a statement and evidence.
This fact already leads to successful deletion requests.
Even without text, the anonymous evaluation implicitly contains the factual assertion that a customer relationship, a patient contact or at least a customer or patient contact has taken place. If there is no further information that enables identification, you can always attack the evaluation by doubting that such contact even existed. In this case, the platform operator has inspection obligations. The platform operator has to request the evaluator to provide more detailed information on the evaluation that allows a review. Often the evaluator will not provide such information, but will either delete the evaluation or simply not provide any information. In both cases the rating will be deleted.
False factual assertion
Assertions of fact which are proven to be untrue must be deleted.
Lies and unconsciously untrue reviews
An untrue rating on Google must always be removed.
Opinions are forbidden in individual cases and are deleted if they exceed the limit of so-called abusive criticism.
Opinion without factual basis
An opinion must be based on an actual fact or occurrence. Accordingly, an opinion without a factual basis is prohibited.
Indirect assertion of fact through expression of opinion
Opinions and facts can also be mixed up. If an expression of opinion contains an assertion that presupposes an internal fact, it can be inadmissible. An indirect factual assertion through expression of opinion is prohibited.