How to properly respond to Google review deletion requests

The fight on the front line of customer ratings and business reviews has something in common with German tenancy law: It always becomes unfair when someone overdoes the applicable rules – in both directions. Dissatisfied customers have long threatened companies with bad reviews on Google, Amazon and industry-specific rating portals if they do not perform as desired. And some reviews actually make you shake your head there. With a bit of skill, you can often read between the lines quite well, especially if you look at several reviews from one reviewer.

But there is also the opposite way – namely business people and owners of companies who try with the legal crowbar to get rid of unpleasant reviews. Because such ratings are there first – and in the worst case they cause falling sales by preventing interested parties from visiting the shop, restaurant or hotel. In addition to specialists for reputation management, who advise companies, for example, on how to guide their satisfied customers to a good rating, there are also lawyers on the scene who, in addition to targeted deletions of obviously unjustified ratings, also request deletion for absolutely provide comprehensible assessments.

The cases that are reported on social media such as Linkedin and Twitter, but also in relevant consumer protection portals, are currently increasing: Lawyers are submitting requests for deletion to Google on behalf of the respective companies. And Google then approaches the authors of the rating and demands proof of the rating – for example in the form of cash register receipts or the like. If this evidence does not come within just seven days, Google announces that it will delete the rating. This service is available from around 50 euros net and it seems to be a lucrative business for some lawyers: Write to Google or another rating platform, doubt the rating and report execution within a few days.

Specifically, there are cases in which a restaurant of a large steakhouse chain writes to reviewers and even mediocre reviews that were made a long time ago (three-star rating, in which, among other things, it is rated that the coffee machine was no longer operational well before closing time and consequently there was no more coffee), doubts.

Another case concerns a nightclub in Munich that the reviewer rated eleven (!) years ago – with three stars, mind you, and without any special comment. According to reports, he doesn’t remember the visit very well, only that it wasn’t supposed to be a highlight, neither in one direction nor in the other.

The commissioned law firm ranks this rating according to a media report as an “abusive criticism” and explains: “The user name of the reviewer is not listed in our client’s customer file, nor can the review or the name of the reviewer be assigned to a contact or an event with our client.” – Certainly not unusual at a catering establishment without membership. This case in particular, in which there are no concrete allegations that would damage business, shows that the businesses in question are simply fighting to increase their score.

Now, if customers have paid by card or it was a business invitation, it may well be that there are still receipts months later, but this is not the rule. Even better: Other restaurants have law firms request deletion of reviews that go back almost ten years. The probability that authors can still provide evidence of this should tend towards zero.

Incidentally, it is also not a solution to completely dispense with a descriptive and justifying comment. Because the Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled on December 23, 2022, file number 6 U 83/22, that a one-star rating on Google is inadmissible and should be removed by Google if there is no customer contact that goes beyond mere contact. or business relationship. A verdict that was entirely justified in this case, because in the specific case it was actually a question of an evaluation given by a competitor.

In the case of many other reviews, especially on Google or Google Maps as well as on Facebook or Yelp, things are much more complex. What reviewers can do depends on the individual case. Anyone who actually still has evidence, such as a card receipt, can transmit it to Google and react by maintaining the review. It can also be helpful to name witnesses or send in any photos you may have as evidence.

If, on the other hand, a reviewer does not react at all to the message from Google, it will almost certainly be deleted because Google has no interest in maintaining the reviews and it could of course actually be a fake review. On the other hand, it cannot be proven that Google applies different standards to companies when they book additional services as part of the entry.

After all, the lawyers’ strategy seems to be working and the calculation is working: If the said Munich club still had a total of 1193 Google reviews with an average of 3.1 stars (as of March 21st) when the daily press reported a week ago, there are quite a few Days later, 952 reviews with an average of 3.4 stars. In view of the great competition, however, these would probably not encourage a visit either.

However, reviewers should be careful not to post a new rating after a long time ago without making it clear that the visit was a long time ago – or even making claims that could damage their reputation. However, it is quite conceivable, as is also the case in the cases mentioned, to write a new review that also informs that the company was confronted with a deletion request. After all, this is also an interesting way of dealing with guests, which allows those interested to draw conclusions – loosely based on the Streisand effect. This creates new work for the companies commissioned with reputation management. However, it is doubtful whether this is in the interest of the client.