OLG Koblenz: Reviews Without Information on Authenticity Can Trigger a Cease-and-Desist Letter
With its judgment of 2 June 2026 (case no. 9 U 1015/25), the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Koblenz draws a clear line on customer reviews – merely naming the platform is no substitute for the transparency about the authenticity check that the law requires.
Customer reviews have long ceased to be a purely marketing matter and have become an independent, actively pursued field of competition law. Since the Omnibus Directive 2022 introduced the provisions no. 23b and 23c of the Annex to § 3 para. 3 UWG, fake reviews have been regarded as a per se infringement, without any weighing of interests in the individual case.
Since then, the courts have consistently sharpened this line: in proceedings brought by a lawyer against a colleague over allegedly fake Facebook reviews, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Düsseldorf established a secondary burden of presentation on the part of the reviewed party as soon as specific grounds for suspicion exist (judgment of 11 January 2024 – case no. I-20 U 91/23). In proceedings brought by a competitor against an online retailer, it upheld a prohibition of advertising with non-authentic reviews on ProvenExpert and Trustpilot (judgment of 23 May 2024 – case no. I-20 U 135/23, lower court: Regional Court (LG) Düsseldorf, judgment of 10 November 2023 – case no. 38 O 176/23) and later even upheld a coercive fine (Ordnungsgeld) against the retailer because it continued to advertise despite the court prohibition (order of 22 July 2025 – case no. I-20 W 47/25). As recently as 2024, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) drew the limits of the transparency obligations for average star ratings (judgment of 25 July 2024 – case no. I ZR 143/23). Reviews thus create a distinct and dynamically growing risk of cease-and-desist letters and litigation – the decision of the OLG Koblenz fits into this development.
The Case: Reviews Without Proof of Origin
By judgment of 2 June 2026 (case no. 9 U 1015/25), the OLG Koblenz has held: anyone who advertises with customer reviews on their website must disclose whether and how their authenticity is verified. Labelling them as “Google reviews” alone is not sufficient for this – a line of defence that is widespread in business practice and that has now been expressly rejected, as far as can be seen for the first time by a higher regional court.
A photovoltaic provider advertised with customer reviews on its website. A competitor objected, among other things, that there was no information on whether and how it is ensured that the reviews actually come from customers who had in fact used the service. Although the core of the proceedings concerned a different question – the provider’s lack of an entry in the Crafts Register (Handwerksrolle) for its complete PV package – the Senate treated the reviews issue as an independent infringement of equal weight.
Why § 5b para. 3 UWG Requires More Than a Citation of the Source
Under § 5b para. 3 UWG, the material information within the meaning of § 5a UWG includes whether and how a business ensures that published reviews come from consumers who have actually used or purchased the goods or service. If this information is missing, this constitutes misleading by omission.
During the proceedings, the provider had made improvements and subsequently labelled the reviews as Google reviews and linked to them. The court did not accept this. Naming the platform says nothing about how the authenticity of the reviews published there is checked – and that is precisely what the law requires. Anyone who writes “according to Google” does not thereby answer the question about the verification mechanism, but only the question of where the reviews can be found.
Making Improvements During the Proceedings Is Not Enough
Even in procedural terms, adjusting the website did not help: the risk of repetition – that is, the risk that the same or a similar impermissible advertisement will be used again – did not lapse, because no cease-and-desist declaration backed by a contractual penalty was given.
Importantly, anyone who has once advertised in breach of competition law does not automatically eliminate the legal risk by changing the advertising later. Legal certainty generally arises only once a binding declaration is given to refrain from the advertising complained of in future.
What Businesses Should Check Now
The decision affects every business that shows customer reviews on its website, in its shop or on its landing page, regardless of whether they come from Google, Trustpilot, ProvenExpert or another platform. A note on the authenticity check must describe how the check is carried out, for example by publishing reviews only after a verified purchase or by sending an invitation by e-mail once an order has been completed. If no check takes place, that too must be stated.
Does your website show customer reviews without explaining the authenticity check, or have you already received a cease-and-desist letter because of this?
Arrange a free consultation with our specialist lawyers now
FAQ
Does the information obligation apply only to reviews on a business’s own website?
No. It applies regardless of the technical means of integration – whether its own review form, an embedded platform widget or a linked external review site.
Is a blanket statement such as “All reviews are genuine” sufficient?
No. What is required is a statement of how authenticity is specifically ensured – a mere assertion without a description of the procedure is not enough.
What if we do not carry out any check at all?
That too must be made transparent. Not carrying out a check is permissible, but concealing that fact is not.
What consequences can be expected in the event of an infringement?
A cease-and-desist letter demanding a cease-and-desist declaration, in the event of a dispute a preliminary injunction, and the costs of legal enforcement.
