Fake Online Reviews and Business Reputation: Lessons from Davidoff v Google
If your business is facing malicious fake reviews, do not respond only with frustration.
Preserve the evidence first.
Fake reviews can damage trust, reduce enquiries and put customers off before they ever contact you. For small and medium business owners, that can be serious because online reviews are often part of the customer journey.
The case of Davidoff v Google LLC [2023] EWHC 1958 (KB) is useful because it shows what a business may need to prove when it says it has been targeted by fake online reviews — and why evidence matters.
You can read the judgment on BAILII here:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1958.html&query=(Davidoff)+AND+(v)+AND+(Google)+AND+(LLC)+AND+(.2023.)+AND+(EWHC)+AND+(1958)+AND+((KB))
A fair point about Google
This case was not about blaming Google.
Google became relevant because the review accounts were linked to Gmail addresses, but the reviews were posted on Trustpilot. The court refused the order because Google was not the right legal target for disclosure in this situation.
For business owners, the point is practical. Platforms such as Google, Trustpilot and other review sites are powerful tools for building trust, but they must be used safely, honestly and with proper evidence behind your online reputation.
Fake Online Reviews - Before looking at the case
Fake reviews are bad for the whole market.
They can make one business look better than it really is, but they can also be used to damage another business unfairly. That is why this issue matters not only for legal compliance, but also for honest competition.
The point is now even stronger under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The new fake review rules make certain review practices automatically unfair, including fake reviews, concealed incentivised reviews and misleading review information. The CMA guidance also expects traders who publish reviews to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove fake or misleading reviews.
I have written separately about why businesses should not buy fake reviews on Google Reviews, Amazon, Trustpilot, Facebook and TripAdvisor.
This article looks at the other side of the same problem: what your business may need to prove if fake reviews are used against you.
What you learn from this case
This case gives small and medium business owners five practical lessons:
Fake review complaints need evidence, not just suspicion.
A negative review is not automatically defamation.
A business claiming defamation must show serious harm, and a company must show serious financial loss.
Where reviews appear to be posted using false identities, repeated patterns or linked accounts, malicious falsehood may become relevant.
If you want disclosure to identify anonymous reviewers, you must choose the correct legal target. The platform where the review was posted may be more relevant than an email provider used only at the registration stage.
Fake reviews are not limited to one platform
Fake reviews can appear on Google Reviews, Trustpilot, Amazon, TripAdvisor, Facebook, Checkatrade, Booking.com, marketplace listings and other platforms where customers form trust before they buy, book or make contact.
They can be used in two ways.
A business may use fake positive reviews to make itself look better.
But fake reviews can also be used against a business.
A competitor, unhappy customer or anonymous person may post false negative reviews to damage reputation, reduce enquiries and discourage customers from booking. This is why the fake review market is dangerous for everyone.
What happened in Davidoff v Google?
The case involved a property management and estate agency business trading as ABC Estates.
The claimants said they had been the victims of what the judgment called “fake reviews” posted on Trustpilot. They had already obtained information from Trustpilot. That information identified email addresses linked to the Trustpilot accounts. Those email addresses were Gmail accounts.
The claimants then applied for a Norwich Pharmacal order against Google.
In simple terms, they wanted Google to provide information that might help identify the people behind the Gmail accounts.
They wanted that information because they were considering claims for defamation and/or malicious falsehood.
Although the reviews in this case were on Trustpilot, the lesson is wider. The same problem can arise on any platform where reviews influence customer trust.
The court wanted evidence, not suspicion
The important lesson is that fake review disputes are not won by suspicion alone.
A business may feel certain that a review is fake. It may look unfair, personal or damaging. But if legal action is being considered, the business needs evidence.
In relation to defamation, the court was not satisfied. The judge said the claimants had provided “no actual evidence” of serious harm to reputation. For the company claimants, the law required evidence of “serious financial loss”.
That is important for business owners.
A poor review may be upsetting. It may feel unfair. It may even look suspicious. But if the business wants to take legal action, it must be able to show why the review caused real legal harm.
That may include evidence of lost enquiries, cancelled bookings, reduced sales, customer comments, timing of the reviews, repeated wording, suspicious accounts or proof that the reviewer was never a genuine customer.
Some reviews looked suspicious
The court did not dismiss the whole complaint as nonsense.
For some reviews, the evidence was stronger.
The judgment referred to linked IP addresses, repeated activity and possible false identities. The judge accepted that there was a credible case that some reviews were “not genuine”.
The judge also said that the use of multiple false online identities to post negative reviews was more consistent with a “dishonest attempt to cause damage” than with honest criticism.
That is the most useful part of the case for small businesses.
It shows that courts can take fake review patterns seriously, but the business must bring proper evidence.
One negative review is not the same as a coordinated pattern of false reviews.
Repeated wording, linked accounts, fake names, sudden timing and reviews from people with no customer history may all matter.
Defamation is not always the strongest route
The case also shows that defamation is not always the best route.
For a defamation claim, a business must deal with the serious harm test. A company trading for profit must show serious financial loss.
That can be difficult if the business only says: “These reviews must have put customers off.”
The court was not prepared to accept general assertion as enough.
In some fake review cases, malicious falsehood may be more relevant. That focuses on false statements, malice and financial damage.
In Davidoff v Google, the company claimants had an arguable malicious falsehood case in relation to some of the suspicious reviews.
The correct legal route depends on the evidence.
Why the application against Google failed
Even though some reviews looked suspicious, the application against Google failed.
This was because of the Norwich Pharmacal test.
To obtain this type of disclosure order, the respondent must be sufficiently involved or “mixed up” in the wrongdoing.
The problem for the claimants was that the alleged wrongdoing was the posting of reviews on Trustpilot. Google had provided Gmail accounts used to register with Trustpilot, but the court decided that Google was not sufficiently involved in the actual posting of the reviews.
The judge treated Google as a “mere witness” to an earlier registration stage, not as the party mixed up in the publication of the reviews.
That does not mean businesses are powerless.
It means the legal route must be chosen carefully. If the problem is a review posted on a review platform, the first practical focus may often be the review platform itself, because that is where the review was published and where account activity may be recorded.
What to do if your business is facing fake reviews
Do not react only emotionally.
Preserve the evidence first.
Take screenshots.
Save the review wording.
Record the platform, date, profile name and any visible account information.
Check whether the reviewer was a real customer.
Keep records showing whether the person bought from you, booked with you, contacted you or received your service.
Then look at the pattern.
Are there repeated phrases?
Were several reviews posted close together?
Do the accounts look new?
Do they use names you cannot match to any customer records?
Have enquiries or bookings dropped after the reviews appeared?
The legal position depends on evidence.
Final point
Fake reviews damage online trust from both sides.
They can be used by businesses to manufacture reputation. They can also be used by dishonest people to attack genuine businesses.
A serious business should not buy fake reviews. It should also have a plan for dealing with fake negative reviews if they are used against it.
Online reputation is part of your business structure.
It should be protected properly.
Need help with fake reviews?
If your business is facing fake reviews, false online comments or a damaging review campaign, consider reaching out to me.
I help small and medium business owners look at the evidence, understand the legal position and decide what practical steps may be available.
Your online reputation is part of your business structure.
It should be protected properly.
Comments