Employer Internet Reviews: Anonymity Component Examined
German Court Rules on Anonymous Criticism on Employer Review Platforms
Dresden and Berlin - Employers in Germany face challenges in removing anonymous criticisms posted on review platforms, according to legal expert Swen Walentowski, spokesperson for anwaltauskunft.de. An employer can only successfully petition for the removal of a critical review if they can prove that they had no contact with the reviewer whatsoever.
Individuals leaving feedback for their employers on review sites do not have to fear their identities being traced by the company. Companies do not have the right to compel a review platform to reveal the identity of an anonymous reviewer - as long as the platform can first demonstrate actual contact between the reviewer and the company. This is the decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Dresden (AZ: 4 U 744/24).
The case in question concerned a review on an employer review platform labeled "Worst Employer of All Time." The employer requested the platform to delete the review, arguing that they had no knowledge of any contact with the reviewer. The platform responded by requesting evidence from the anonymous reviewer, who subsequently sent anonymized documents such as employment contracts and training certificates. The platform forwarded these documents to the complainant.
The company considered this evidence insufficient. They demanded the disclosure of the critic's identity to verify the alleged contact. However, the platform refused to release personal data. The company then initiated a lawsuit, seeking an injunction and demanding the deletion of the review.
The Higher Regional Court Dresden dismissed the lawsuit. The court held that there was no claim for an injunction and found the platform operator not responsible. While the platform has a duty to investigate if a review is contested, it has fulfilled this duty in this case. The court underscored that full disclosure of the reviewer's identity is generally illegal.
Platforms only need to check if there was actual contact and provide the reviewed company with data protection-compliant information. Disclosure is only possible under strict conditions and requires a court order.
Related Developments in Hamm
- Greens Propose Ban on Federal AfD in Hamm
- Hamm Job Market Stagnates
- Bridges in Distress: Engineers Discuss in Hamm
Further Reading on Hamm News
The handling of anonymous criticism on employer review platforms in Germany is primarily governed by German privacy law and procedural rules, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and relevant civil procedure statutes.
While German law generally respects the right to freedom of expression, enabling individuals to post anonymous reviews, if the review contains defamatory statements or falsehoods, the employer may have legal grounds to challenge it.
If a review is contested in court, German courts may, under specific circumstances, order the reviewer's identity to be disclosed, but such disclosure requires a court order, and courts will evaluate the necessity and proportionality of revealing the identity, balancing freedom of expression against the employer's rights to defend its reputation or enforce confidentiality.
In cases involving alleged disclosure of trade secrets or breach of confidentiality by an anonymous reviewer, procedural protections for business secrets have been strengthened. However, these primarily govern how sensitive information is handled within court proceedings, not the automatic disclosure of identities.
While the German court's decision in Dresden clarifies a reviewer's protection of identity on employer platforms, the role of technology in this context is significant. The use of technology, such as review platforms, has become a general-news topic as it allows for anonymous criticism, which is often protected under German privacy law. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a crucial role in regulating these platforms, especially in cases where the employer challenges the authenticity or defamatory nature of the reviews. The technology enables the exchange of anonymized documents between parties, demonstrating contact between the reviewer and the employer, but also raises concerns about the potential misuse of this anonymity for spreading false information or breaching confidentiality.
