Negative Reviews and Defamation: When Does Criticism Cross the Line into Illegality?

Quick Overview

A negative review is not illegal in and of itself, even if it is highly critical. There is a fundamental difference between an opinion and a statement of fact. A customer may write that a doctor came across as arrogant. However, if they falsely claim that the doctor was treating patients while intoxicated, this may infringe on the doctor’s rights. One can defend against such an unjustified infringement by requesting the removal of the content, an apology, and, depending on the circumstances, monetary compensation. In serious cases, the criminal offense of defamation may also apply.

When is a negative review still considered permissible criticism?

Imagine two reviews: “The lawyer came across as arrogant, and I wouldn’t use his services again.” Or: “The lawyer stole my money.”

At first glance, both are negative reviews. From a legal standpoint, however, there may be a fundamental difference between them. The first statement is primarily an evaluative judgment. The author describes their opinion or subjective experience. The second contains a factual claim whose truth can be verified.

It is precisely this distinction between factual claims and value judgments that serves as one of the fundamental guidelines for assessing criticism. In addition, there are so-called hybrid statements—that is, value judgments based on certain facts. A negative review is therefore not unlawful simply because it is harsh, unpleasant, or harmful to the person or company being reviewed. Freedom of speech also protects criticism that is expressive or exaggerated. At the same time, a value judgment cannot be subjected to the “test of truth” in the same way as a statement of a specific fact.

However, even an opinion is not boundless. It should have a reasonable factual basis and should not devolve into self-serving denigration or a gross insult without any factual context. This is well illustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision, Case No. 23 Cdo 2758/2010, which concerned harsh criticism in a review of a printing company. The critical text was upheld, among other reasons, because it was based on a proven factual basis and was neither vulgar nor deliberately defamatory. In other words: the law does not guarantee you an internet free of bad reviews. However, it protects you from situations where someone passes off an opinion as facts that they simply made up.

What if the reviewer is convinced that they are right?

The author’s subjective belief plays a certain role, but it is not a universal excuse. When assessing an unjustified infringement of personality rights, the focus is primarily on the objective content and effect of the statement. Thus, an infringement can occur even without the author intentionally intending to harm anyone. Good faith may be relevant, for example, when evaluating the permissibility of criticism or when deciding on compensation for damages.

For natural persons, basic protection is provided primarily by Sections 81 and 82 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, which protect, among other things, a person’s dignity, reputation, and honor. Legal entities are protected against unauthorized interference with their reputation primarily by Section 135 of the Civil Code.

When Does It Constitute Defamation?

The word “defamation” is used quite loosely in everyday speech. From a legal standpoint, however, it has a specific meaning. According to Section 184 of Act No. 40/2009 Coll., the Criminal Code, a person commitsthe crime of defamation if they disseminate false information about another person that is likely to significantly undermine that person’s reputation among fellow citizens. This may involve, for example, harm in the workplace, disruption of family relationships, or the causing of other serious harm.

The law explicitly addresses the publication of such information via a publicly accessible computer network under the stricter provisions of Section 184(2). Therefore, a negative opinion in and of itself will generally not constitute the crime of defamation. The statement “I was not satisfied with this doctor” is legally in a completely different category than a false accusation that the doctor consumes alcohol while on duty.

Depending on the circumstances , the most egregious offensive conduct may also constitute an offense against civil coexistence under Section 7 of Act No. 251/2016 Coll., on Certain Offenses. This provision penalizes, for example, ridicule or other gross insults.

How can you defend yourself against a false review?

Speed plays a major role on the internet. A single post can garner comments and shares within a few hours and reach people who would otherwise never have seen it. That is why it makes sense to take action before a single review turns into a snowball effect that damages your reputation.

In practice, it’s best to take several approaches at once:

• Gather evidence. Save the URL, take a screenshot of the entire page including the date, and capture the author’s profile, reactions, shares, and any communication with the platform operator.
• Pinpoint the problematic statements. It’s not enough that the review is unpleasant. Focus on specific claims that you consider false or unlawful.
• Ask the author to correct the content. Depending on the situation, you can request that the content be removed or that the author refrain from further action.
• Contact the platform. Hosting service providers must have a mechanism in place for reporting illegal content.
• Consider legal action. If the infringement continues, the author refuses to respond, or the case is serious, a lawsuit may be warranted. In urgent cases, you may also consider seeking a preliminary injunction.

Under Section 82 of the Civil Code, a natural person may, in particular, seek to have the unauthorized interference cease and its consequences remedied. Depending on the circumstances, there may also be a right to an apology and, if the infringement is sufficiently severe, to monetary compensation under Sections 2951, 2956, and 2957 of the Civil Code.

Practical Tip: Before engaging in a heated public debate with the author of a review, secure the evidence. The author may edit or delete the post, and proving its original form will then be significantly more difficult. Under certain conditions, Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Code allows you to secure evidence even before proceedings begin. The state of affairs may also be certified by a notarial or bailiff’s record pursuant to Section 78a.

Will reporting the review to the platform help?

Often, yes, and this approach can be faster than going to court.

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Digital Services (the Digital Services Act, or DSA) plays a significant role today. Article 16 of the Regulation requires hosting service providers to establish an easily accessible electronic mechanism for reporting illegal content.

The report should be specific. Indicate exactly where the objectionable content is located and why you consider it unlawful. A sufficiently precise report may also be important for assessing whether the provider was aware of the specific unlawful content.

In August 2026, the Czech Telecommunications Office highlighted the application of the DSA specifically in connection with user reviews.

However, the platform and the court are not two paths between which you must always choose. They can complement each other. The platform may offer a faster way to limit the further dissemination of content, while a court can make an authoritative ruling on the law and order, for example, the removal of the consequences of the infringement, an apology, or monetary compensation.

Is it possible to identify the author of an anonymous review?

Sometimes, yes, but success cannot be guaranteed. A username like “Dissatisfied_Customer89” obviously doesn’t reveal much on its own. However, the platform may have access to registration, usage, or other data. The situation varies depending on what data actually exists, who stores it, whether it has already been deleted, and whether the legal conditions for disclosing it have been met.

In criminal proceedings, law enforcement authorities have stronger legal tools at their disposal for obtaining the necessary information. However, this does not mean that it makes sense to file a criminal complaint solely to find out the author’s IP address. Criminal proceedings are appropriate in cases where there is a genuine suspicion of a criminal offense, such as defamation under Section 184 of the Criminal Code.

How much can you claim for damage to your reputation?

There is no universal “price list for defamation.” First, it is necessary to distinguish between property damage and non-property damage. Property damage may consist, for example, of a demonstrable loss of clients, canceled orders, or lost profits. The most difficult part of the dispute, however, is often not calculating the loss itself, but proving a causal link—that is, that the client or contract was indeed lost precisely because of a specific review.

Non-property damage relates, for example, to an infringement on honor, dignity, respectability, or professional reputation. In such cases, there is no simple formula.

The court may evaluate, in particular:

• the severity and truth or falsity of the statements,
• the intensity of the infringement and the size of the audience,
• the length of time the content was available,
• its further dissemination and repetition,
• the actual consequences in the individual’s personal or professional life,
• the author’s motivation,
• the author’s conduct following the infringement, such as whether they removed the post and apologized.

Section 2957 of the Civil Code is also relevant, as it takes into account, among other things, the intentional nature of the infringement and the amplification of its effects through public disclosure. This aspect, in particular, can be very important in the context of social media.

An interesting example is provided by Supreme Court Decision 25 Cdo 27/2020, which concerned false information published online about actor Oldřich Kaiser and his family. The Supreme Court took into account the reach of the internet as well as the difficulty of completely erasing a digital footprint. In this case, 100,000 CZK was awarded. However, this amount should not be viewed as a standard rate for online defamation. The court assesses each case individually and also takes into account the amounts awarded in comparable cases.

Is the operator of a website or social media platform also liable for a review?

The operator of a review website is not automatically liable for everything its users post. At the same time, however, it is not true that the content on their platform never concerns them. A significant Czech case is the Supreme Court’s ruling 23 Cdo 2623/2011 in the dispute between PROLUX and the operator of the Internet Info website.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the liability of a hosting provider for user posts in light of Act No. 480/2004 Coll., on Certain Information Society Services. Simply put, the provider is not required to proactively monitor every user comment. However, its position changes the moment it becomes demonstrably aware of illegal content and fails to respond appropriately.

Today, these rules must be read in conjunction with the DSA, which upholds the principle that there is no general obligation to monitor all user content while also regulating the mechanism for reporting illegal content. It also depends on the operator’s actual role. A neutral provider of a comment section is in a different position than one who creates the posts themselves, substantially edits them, or exercises decisive influence over their form.

In European case law, the case C-18/18 Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland is noteworthy. The Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that the absence of a general monitoring obligation does not, under certain conditions, prevent a court from imposing an obligation on a hosting provider to remove or block not only specific illegal content but also identical content and, under specified circumstances, equivalent content.

Note: Even someone who merely shares a post may be held liable

“I didn’t write it; I just shared it.” At first glance, this seems like a convincing defense, but from a legal standpoint, it may not be sufficient. By sharing, a person makes the information accessible to a new audience and can thus further amplify the original impact. However, this does not mean that every instance of sharing a problematic post is automatically unlawful. The decisive factors are the content, context, method of sharing, knowledge of the post’s falsity, and its broader impact. For example, there is a difference between commenting, “This is true; watch out for him,” and sharing the same post for the purpose of criticizing or refuting it.

An interesting analogy is provided by Supreme Court Decision 25 Cdo 3417/2024. It did not concern a defamatory text, but rather the further dissemination of a person’s image on a social network. The court confirmed that the prior publication of a photograph on a professional Facebook profile does not, in and of itself, constitute consent to its arbitrary further dissemination. Each subsequent use must be evaluated separately.

Similar logic may also apply to defamatory text: the mere fact that you were not its original author does not automatically absolve you of liability for its subsequent knowing dissemination.

Summary

Czech law does not protect business owners, doctors, lawyers, or other professionals from negative reviews. A customer has the right to express a negative experience—and their criticism can be very harsh. A legal issue arises particularly when someone presents false statements as facts, when the judgment in the review lacks a reasonable factual basis, or when the criticism turns into baseless vilification.

If a false review is harming you, act quickly. First, secure evidence; then, you can demand a correction from the author and report the illegal content to the platform. In cases of more serious harm, legal protection may be sought, and, depending on the circumstances, monetary compensation may also be available. Filing a criminal complaint is appropriate primarily when the conduct actually exhibits the elements of a criminal offense.