Doctor versus Online Review Platform – Court Ruling (Germany, 2026)

Court Ruling
DPA12 June 2026Germany
final
Court Ruling

General GDPR enforcement action

This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A doctor in Germany tried to stop an online review platform from publishing a notice about removed reviews of his practice. The court decided that the platform could share this information, which matters because it affects how online reviews are managed and what information can be publicly shared. This ruling emphasizes the balance between transparency and personal privacy.

What happened

The court ruled on a doctor's request to remove a notice about reviews that were taken down from an online platform.

Who was affected

The doctor, whose reviews were discussed, was directly affected by this ruling.

What the authority found

The court held that the online review platform could publish the notice under GDPR, as it promotes transparency.

Why this matters

This ruling sets a precedent for how online platforms can handle reviews and personal data. Website operators should be aware of their responsibilities when sharing information about user-generated content.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 17(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 17(1) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityOLG Köln
Reviewed AuthorityLandgericht Köln
Source verified 4 July 2026
articles corrected
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject, a doctor, sought an injunction against the Controller, the operator of an online review platform, requiring the removal of, and prohibiting the future publication of, a notice stating that between six and ten reviews concerning his medical practice had been removed during the previous year following complaints relating to defamation under German law. The Regional Court of Cologne dismissed the application, following which the data subject lodged an immediate appeal before the Higher Regional Court of Cologne. The data subject argued that the notice was inaccurate because the reviews had been challenged on the basis that no genuine patient relationship existed, rather than on the ground of defamation. He submitted that the notice therefore created the false impression that he had complained of defamatory reviews, rendering the processing of his personal data unlawful. The Controller argued that complaints alleging the absence of a genuine customer or patient relationship fell within its internal category of complaints concerning defamation under German law and that publishing the number of removed reviews promoted transparency regarding its review moderation process. The court held that where a data subject seeks not only the erasure of personal data but also an injunction preventing its future publication, Article 17(1) GDPR provides a basis for both forms of relief. It further held that the journalistic exemption under Article 85(2) GDPR did not apply because the Controller's review platform, including the automated notices relating to removed reviews, did not process data for journalistic purposes. The court also held that the displayed number of removed reviews constituted personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR because it related to an identified natural person. By storing and disclosing that information, the Controller processed personal data within the meaning of Article 4(2) GDPR. In assessing the accuracy of the notice under

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Doctor versus Online Review Platform in DE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

12 June 2026

Authority

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Doctor versus Online Review Platform - Germany (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: