OGH: Is a One-star Rating Legally an Insult?

Oct 4, 2024 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

One-star ratings are purely subjective as well as unverifiable value judgements that can only be right or wrong based on the personal opinion of the person giving the rating and thus only reflect the obviously subjective view of that individual.

In the case at hand, the plaintiffs are the owners of a law firm. The defendant is a company operating a service which allows registered users to rate companies by awarding one to five stars. Users must provide a username and email address in order to register. The accuracy of the information provided by users is not checked by the defendant. It is therefore possible to register under an alias.

The plaintiffs had received a one-star rating from an anonymous user and requested its removal. When the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiffs brought an action based on Sections 1330(1) and (2) of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, hereinafter ABGB) seeking to enjoin the defendant from publishing the review.

The action was dismissed by both the court of first instance and the court of appeal. The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) gave the following judgment:

In their professional lives, self-employed lawyers must expect to be subject to public scrutiny of their conduct and criticism of their performance, given that their activities affect others. In order to protect the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Austrian constitution and European law, evaluations by persons who are not clients are not inadmissible, especially since lawyers appear in public in a variety of functions, so that many points of contact or opportunities for observation by others may arise.

The use of point or star ratings cannot constitute an insult within the scope of Section 1330 (1) of the ABGB.

In accordance with established case law, the right to an injunction under Section 20(3) of the ABGB only exists if the infringement is obvious to the provider without the need for further investigation. However, as the untruthfulness of the alleged core fact of the reviewer’s statement has not been proven, there is no claim.

OGH 6 Ob 120/23z (18 June 2024)