Germany
OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 11.01.2024 - I-20 U 91/23
That is barbaric!
Why should I not be allowed to falsify reviews?
“Satisfied clients or bought praise? Lawyers cannot rest on their duty of confidentiality in disputes about this: In the case of references to fake reviews, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court also requires lawyers to provide concrete information about who is behind the review.
A Düsseldorf lawyer is no longer allowed to advertise with extremely positive reviews on his Facebook page. According to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, he had already made the claim that the reviews came from clients by providing them with likes and comments. However, there were a number of arguments against this and he had not refuted these indications of fake reviews.
The lawyer had numerous positive reviews on the social network. He also liked and commented on them. A competitor from Düsseldorf, the IT and copyright lawyer Jasper Prigge, issued him with a warning. As he stated in his post on linkedin regarding the ruling of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, an "extensive analysis of the profiles that had left a review" had revealed numerous indications that the reviews were fictitious, i.e. that there had been no contact between the alleged reviewers and the law firm. In response to his warning, the colleague deleted the disputed reviews, but did not issue a cease-and-desist declaration: He was not aware of any discrepancies regarding the reviews.”
https://rsw.beck.de
Wahl-Attorneys / Wahl
npub1ra…57hck
2024-02-05 17:20:51
Author Public Key
npub1rawahl0g933pffpwyznejmg7z9xcgry7uu9x776kfy97pvxl2a2s657hckPublished at
2024-02-05 17:20:51Event JSON
{
"id": "089c808b46686e501eaee78431880c2547329e5ee20ecba37a4113ccb00034f8",
"pubkey": "1f5ddbfde82c6214a42e20a7996d1e114d840c9ee70a6f7b56490be0b0df5755",
"created_at": 1707153651,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Germany\n\nOLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 11.01.2024 - I-20 U 91/23\n\nThat is barbaric! \n\nWhy should I not be allowed to falsify reviews?\n\n\n“Satisfied clients or bought praise? Lawyers cannot rest on their duty of confidentiality in disputes about this: In the case of references to fake reviews, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court also requires lawyers to provide concrete information about who is behind the review.\n\nA Düsseldorf lawyer is no longer allowed to advertise with extremely positive reviews on his Facebook page. According to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, he had already made the claim that the reviews came from clients by providing them with likes and comments. However, there were a number of arguments against this and he had not refuted these indications of fake reviews.\n\nThe lawyer had numerous positive reviews on the social network. He also liked and commented on them. A competitor from Düsseldorf, the IT and copyright lawyer Jasper Prigge, issued him with a warning. As he stated in his post on linkedin regarding the ruling of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, an \"extensive analysis of the profiles that had left a review\" had revealed numerous indications that the reviews were fictitious, i.e. that there had been no contact between the alleged reviewers and the law firm. In response to his warning, the colleague deleted the disputed reviews, but did not issue a cease-and-desist declaration: He was not aware of any discrepancies regarding the reviews.”\n\nhttps://rsw.beck.de\n",
"sig": "fc5895e1b6cff56267f9e4821e3ef4f30fa70e886f2e167b46515869945f00da1299e68e5f22d875c7603e2ecda8768f495e02aee55b303accbfbf0b023256d1"
}