A fake Google review is sinking your business: how to remove it

The case, in five lines

What is brought

An action for civil protection of the right to honour for unlawful interference (Articles 7.7 and 9 of Organic Law 1/1982) against the author and, if it failed to remove the review after a proper notice, against the platform. If the author is a competitor, actions under the Unfair Competition Act for denigration.

Before which court

The civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) for the claimant's domicile, through ordinary proceedings with the Ministerio Fiscal (the Public Prosecutor) taking part. The unfair competition route belongs to the commercial section. Beforehand, notice to the platform through the mechanism in Article 16 of the Digital Services Act.

Deadline

The honour action lapses four years after the person entitled could bring it (Article 9.5 of Organic Law 1/1982), and it cannot be interrupted. The unfair competition action is time barred one year after it could be brought and the author became known, and in any event three years after the conduct ended (Article 35 of Law 3/1991).

Who can bring it

Claimant: the company or professional that owns the business, since legal persons also hold a right to honour in the sense of prestige. Defendants: the author of the review, whoever commissioned it and the platform that, knowing it was unlawful, did not remove it diligently.

Financial risk

If the court sees the review as opinion or a true fact, the claim is dismissed and you will in principle bear the costs. Expert evidence is paid up front, suing a foreign company lengthens the timetable and a badly judged lawsuit amplifies exactly what you wanted to silence.

Opinion or false fact: the line that decides whether there is a case

The first question is not how to remove the review but what exactly it says. Article 7.7 of Organic Law 1/1982 treats as unlawful interference the attribution of facts or the expression of value judgements that in any way injure another person's dignity, damaging their reputation or undermining their self-esteem. But that rule coexists with freedom of expression, and in a consumer review the courts give criticism very wide latitude, because it serves an informative purpose for other customers.

The working line is simple to state: what can be proved false is a fact; what cannot is an opinion. "The worst paella of my life" or "unpleasant service, never again" are protected value judgements, however harsh. "They served us bad seafood and my daughter ended up in the emergency department", "they charged me twice and refused to refund it" or "they operate without a licence" are facts, and freedom of expression does not protect the attribution of false facts or gratuitous insult that adds nothing to the criticism.

There are two nuances a generalist overlooks. The Tribunal Constitucional (the Constitutional Court) and the Tribunal Supremo (the Supreme Court) recognise that legal persons have a right to honour understood as prestige or commercial reputation, so the company can sue in its own name, although that honour lacks the dimension of personal dignity, which shows when the harm is valued. And a one star rating with no text attributes no fact at all: no honour action lies against it, and the battle is fought under the platform's rules or, if a competitor is behind it, under unfair competition law. If what hurts you is true but old information about you as an individual, the route is a different one: the right to be forgotten.

Google is only liable once it knows, and how you tell it decides everything

The platform is not the author of the review: it is a hosting service provider. Article 6 of the Digital Services Act and Article 16 of Law 34/2002 exempt it from liability as long as it has no actual knowledge of the illegality, or if, as soon as it acquires that knowledge, it acts expeditiously to remove the content. Spanish law says there is actual knowledge when a competent body has declared the illegality, but it leaves other means open, and the Tribunal Supremo has held that no prior ruling is needed where the illegality is patent.

This is where the most common mistake is made. Pressing the button to report a breach of the platform's rules is a contractual complaint, not a legal notice. Article 16 of the Regulation requires the notice to contain a sufficiently substantiated explanation of why the content is illegal, its exact location, the name and email address of the notifier and a statement of good faith. And its paragraph 3 holds the key: the notice only creates actual knowledge where it allows a diligent provider to establish, without a detailed legal examination, that the information is illegal.

That is why the notice is drafted not as a protest but as evidence: it attaches that day's booking and till records, the history of the profile that posted the review and any link to a competitor, so that the falsehood is obvious. The platform must acknowledge receipt, decide diligently, non arbitrarily and objectively, and inform you of its decision together with the available redress. If it says no, Article 20 gives you at least six months to complain within its own system, with review by qualified staff and not solely by automated means, and that documented double refusal is what later proves to the court that the platform knew and did not act.

What you ask the court for and what you actually obtain

Article 9 of Organic Law 1/1982 describes protection that goes well beyond money: a declaration of the interference, its immediate cessation, restoration of the earlier position and, for honour, publication of the judgment in whole or in part at the losing party's expense with at least the same reach the interference had. It also covers the measures needed to prevent further interference, which is what matters when the attack comes in waves from new accounts.

As for money, the law presumes harm whenever the interference is established, and compensation reaches non material harm, valued by the seriousness of the injury and the reach of the medium. On a business profile that reach is measured by the profile's views and by how long the review stayed visible. Lost turnover is another matter: it is not presumed, it requires accounting expert evidence separating it from seasonality and ordinary competition, and it is where most claims fall short.

Against the platform, Article 6 of the Regulation preserves the power of a judicial authority to require it to terminate an infringement, even where no liability can be attributed to it. In other words, the court can be asked to order removal even if no money is claimed from the platform. The company providing the service in Europe is usually based in Ireland, but the European jurisdiction rules allow proceedings in Spain, and the Court of Justice of the European Union has accepted that a company may seek removal and the whole of its loss before the courts of the Member State where its centre of interests lies.

The anonymous author: identifying them is the hardest part of the case

Almost every fake review comes from a profile with no real name. The temptation is to ask the judge to make the platform reveal who is behind it, but Article 256 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (the Civil Procedure Act) only expressly provides for preliminary measures to identify users of internet services where intellectual or industrial property infringements are involved. For honour there is no tailor made measure, and some courts refuse to stretch the existing ones.

That is why the strategy is not built on that request. The work starts with what the profile leaves in plain sight: its review history, the dates, the photos, the venues it rates and how it rates them. When several accounts created in the same month attack the same business and praise the same competitor, the pattern is already evidence. The firm works with a digital forensics expert and, where the case requires it, with a private investigator to turn that pattern into a name.

The criminal route remains. If the review accuses you of a crime knowing it to be false, or is a serious insult made publicly, a private criminal complaint (querella) can be filed, and in criminal proceedings the judge can require the platform to hand over the account data. But the offence is prosecuted only at the victim's instance, a prior attempt at conciliation is required and it is time barred after one year, a far shorter period than the civil one. And if no author ever emerges, you can still sue the platform that failed to remove the review, which does not require knowing who wrote it.

If a competitor is behind it, the case changes lanes

When the review is written or commissioned by a competitor, it stops being merely an attack on honour and becomes an act in the market. Article 9 of the Ley de Competencia Desleal (the Unfair Competition Act) treats as unfair the dissemination of statements about a third party's activity, services or establishment that are apt to undermine its standing in the market, unless they are accurate, true and pertinent. With that wording, in practice it is the competitor who has to show that what was said was true.

This lane has advantages and costs. It allows you to seek a declaration of unfairness, cessation, removal, rectification and damages, and it is heard by the commercial section of the Tribunal de Instancia. But its actions are time barred one year after they could be brought and you learned who the author was, and in any event three years after the conduct ended. This is a limitation period, so a formal demand interrupts it. And, unlike the honour action, it requires a prior attempt at an appropriate dispute resolution method.

What almost nobody mentions is that honour and unfair competition do not simply add up in a single claim: they are heard by different sections, with different time limits and requirements, so the main lane is chosen with the evidence in front of you. And the 2022 reform that declared fake reviews unfair focuses on those posted or commissioned to promote one's own business. The negative campaign against you is attacked as denigration; if the competitor is also inflating itself with bought positive reviews, that is a separate front worth documenting at the same time.

Four years that cannot be interrupted, and no prior mediation

The honour action lapses four years after the person entitled could bring it. It is a lapse period, not a limitation period: it is not stopped by formal letters, complaints to the platform or negotiations with the author. The defendant will place the start on the publication date, not on the day you read the review, and it is wise to count from there. Each new review is a separate interference with its own clock, and the first to lapse is the oldest.

Since Organic Law 1/2025, the civil courts require a prior attempt at an appropriate dispute resolution method, but its Article 5.2 expressly excludes the civil judicial protection of fundamental rights. The honour claim therefore goes in without that requirement, something many people do not know and which saves months. Nor is it needed to seek interim measures before the claim or preliminary measures. It is needed in the unfair competition lane, and filing without that attempt leads to the claim being declared inadmissible.

The honour claim is filed before the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia for the claimant's domicile, through ordinary proceedings, with the Ministerio Fiscal (the Public Prosecutor) taking part and with priority status. When the review keeps causing damage every day, interim removal is sought with the claim or before it, because the law provides for the interim protection needed to secure the judgment's effectiveness. With freedom of expression at stake, the courts grant it only where the falsehood is clear, and they usually require security.

How we run the case, step by step

1. 1

   Secure the evidence before reporting anything

   The review is certified with its exact address, date, full text and the author's profile, together with the author's review history, through a forensic capture with a digital fingerprint. If the platform removes it or the author deletes it first, the evidence of the harm disappears with it.

2. 2

   Separate opinion, false fact and insult

   Each sentence of the review is classified. That classification decides the lane (honour or unfair competition), the time limit that runs and whether there is a case at all. A rating with no text or harsh criticism is not taken to court; a provably false fact is.

3. 3

   Notify the platform with evidence, not complaints

   The legal notice is sent with the four elements required by Article 16 of the Regulation and the documents that make the falsehood evident without a detailed legal examination. In parallel the review is reported under the platform's own rules, which is sometimes faster.

4. 4

   Challenge the refusal in the internal system

   If the platform keeps the review up, the Article 20 complaint is filed within the minimum six months from being told of its decision, asking for review by qualified staff. That second refusal, on record, prepares the claim against the platform.

5. 5

   Identify the author and serve a demand

   With a forensic expert and, if needed, an investigator, we reconstruct who is behind it. Once identified, the author is required in writing to remove and retract; if it is a competitor, that demand, with a concrete proposal, also serves as the prior negotiation. If only the criminal route can identify the author, the complaint is filed within the year.

6. 6

   Sue and seek interim removal

   The honour claim is filed with the civil section for the claimant's domicile, against the author, the platform or both, seeking cessation, removal, publication of the judgment and compensation, with interim removal if the harm is daily. If a competitor is behind it, the unfair competition claim goes to the commercial section.

The law that applies

• Art. 7.7 LO 1/1982. It treats as unlawful interference with honour the attribution of facts or the expression of value judgements, through acts or statements that in any way injure another person's dignity, damaging their reputation or undermining their self-esteem. BOE-A-1982-11196
• Art. 9 LO 1/1982. Judicial protection covers every measure needed to end the interference: a declaration of it, immediate cessation, restoration of the earlier position and, for honour, publication of the judgment at the losing party's expense with at least the same reach; prevention of further interference, compensation and recovery of any profit obtained, without prejudice to interim protection. Harm is presumed once the interference is proved, non material harm is valued by the circumstances, the seriousness and the reach of the medium, and the actions lapse four years after the person entitled could bring them. BOE-A-1982-11196
• Art. 16 Reglamento (UE) 2022/2065. It requires hosting service providers to have electronic mechanisms for notifying illegal content. The notice must include a sufficiently substantiated explanation, the exact electronic location, the notifier's name and email address and a statement of good faith, and it gives actual knowledge where it allows a diligent provider to establish the illegality without a detailed legal examination. The provider acknowledges receipt, decides diligently, non arbitrarily and objectively, and communicates its decision with the available redress. 32022R2065
• Art. 20 Reglamento (UE) 2022/2065. Online platforms must give anyone who submitted a notice free electronic access to an internal complaint system for at least six months from being informed of the decision, including against a decision not to remove the content. They must handle complaints diligently and non arbitrarily, reverse an unfounded decision without undue delay, communicate a reasoned decision with the other redress available and decide under the supervision of qualified staff, not solely by automated means. 32022R2065
• Art. 16 LSSI. A provider hosting third party data is not liable for the stored information if it has no actual knowledge that it is unlawful or that it harms a third party's property or rights giving rise to compensation, or if, having that knowledge, it acts diligently to remove it or block access. There is actual knowledge when a competent body has declared the illegality or the harm and the provider knows of the decision, without prejudice to other means of actual knowledge, and the exemption does not apply where the author acts under the provider's direction, authority or control. BOE-A-2002-13758
• Art. 9 LCD. It treats as unfair the making or dissemination of statements about a third party's activity, services, establishment or business relationships that are apt to undermine its standing in the market, unless they are accurate, true and pertinent. Statements about the nationality, beliefs or ideology, private life or other strictly personal circumstances of the person affected are not pertinent. BOE-A-1991-628
• Art. 35 LCD. The unfair competition actions in Article 32 are time barred one year after they could be brought and the person entitled learned who carried out the unfair act, and in any event three years after the conduct ended. BOE-A-1991-628
• Art. 5 LO 1/2025. In civil matters a prior attempt at an appropriate dispute resolution method is a condition for admissibility, with the subject of the negotiation matching that of the dispute, and direct negotiation between the parties or their lawyers counts. The civil judicial protection of fundamental rights is excluded, among other matters, and the requirement does not apply to interim measures sought before the claim or to preliminary measures. BOE-A-2025-76

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions