Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt a.M.: "Having reviews deleted" – inadmissible legal services without authorisation

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main decided by judgment of 7 November 2024 (Az. 6 U 90/24) that the offer by an unauthorised company to have negative reviews deleted on the Internet constitutes an inadmissible legal service. Even if the company merely sends standardised letters to review portals, in the court's view it objectively creates the impression of an individual legal case review and thus exceeds the limits of permissible activity.

The case: reputation management as a legal tightrope walk

An increasing number of companies offer so-called "reputation measures", usually with the promise of having undesirable or allegedly false reviews deleted on Google, Kununu & Co. In the case decided by the OLG Frankfurt, an entity not licensed as a legal services provider advertised on its website that it "removes negative reviews". It promised a deletion rate of up to 90%, over 100,000 already removed reviews and billing only in case of success.

Illustration of the disputed presentation/statements

A competitor – an authorised lawyer who himself is active in the field of online reputation law and has negative reviews deleted for clients – saw in this an inadmissible legal service and sent a cease-and-desist notice to the provider. The latter refused to issue a declaration of commitment to cease and desist, and sued for a determination that the cease-and-desist notice was unfounded. Both the Regional Court (LG) and the Higher Regional Court (OLG) dismissed the action.

The decision of the OLG Frankfurt a.M.

The court made clear: the mere offering and advertising of a legal service without corresponding authorisation constitutes a breach of competition law. An actual legal review in the individual case is not required for this; the impression that such a review takes place is sufficient.

According to § 2 Abs. 1 Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz (RDG), a legal service is any activity in concrete third-party matters that requires a legal review. The plaintiff's website conveyed precisely this impression: the wording, the "individual offers" and the high deletion rate suggested that a legal assessment of the reviews took place.

The fact that the company actually only sends a standardised letter to the platforms ("In the present review, it is not comprehensible to what extent a necessary connection exists") does not change this. This is because, objectively, the customer addressed expects an individual legal review.

The court also emphasised that the protective function of the Legal Services Act (RDG) consists precisely in protecting those seeking legal advice and the legal community from unqualified legal services. Circumventing this protective function through clever marketing is unacceptable.

Reasoning and classification

The OLG Frankfurt thus aligned itself with the line of the OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 23.11.2023 – 5 U 25/23 ("Customer review control"), according to which the objective expectation of the customer is decisive: if a legal individual case review is required or is to be assumed from the customer's perspective, a legal service exists.

The plaintiff's reference in its terms and conditions that it did not provide legal advice and did not review assessments in terms of content did not help her. Such clauses bore no reasonable relationship to the advertising presentation on the website and were therefore disregarded.

Moreover, the court emphasised that advertising with success rates and TÜV certification reinforced the impression of legal competence – a significant indication of the violation. The reference to freedom of profession (Art. 12 GG) did not apply: no one may create the impression of offering legal services if they are not authorised to do so.

Conclusion: Clear boundaries for reputation service providers

With this decision, the OLG Frankfurt draws a clear line between permissible reputation management and inadmissible legal services. Companies may offer technical or communicative assistance, such as monitoring reviews or developing response strategies, but may not conduct legally relevant objections or deletion procedures on behalf of their clients.

The mere offering or advertising of such services without authorisation is sufficient to constitute a violation of § 3a UWG in conjunction with the RDG. The protection of the legal community from unqualified providers is clearly at the forefront for the courts.

Practical tips for companies and service providers

1. Providers of review or reputation services should clarify that they do not provide legal services and do not perform legal assessments of content.
2. Statements such as "enforcing deletion of reviews" or "conducting legal review" can already create the impression of legal advice.
3. Permissible are purely technical or organisational services, such as reporting violations according to predetermined platform guidelines.
4. Anyone who wishes to review or enforce legal steps against reviews should leave this to a lawyer.

We lawyers specialising in competition law advise and represent you comprehensively on all questions regarding reputation management, advertising and legally compliant service design – both preventively and in competition law disputes.