Deleted Stars: How Google Reviews Become a Question of Trust – and Why Switzerland is Legally a Different World

clarus.news | Analysis | May 14, 2026 by Andreas Binggeli and Ernst Anker

Since late April 2026, Google in Germany has for the first time been showing how many reviews have been removed from a business profile due to defamation complaints. The debate was also triggered by an episode of the podcast "Servus, Grüezi, Hallo" by Zeit, in which Berlin editor Lenz Jacobsen described his own deletion case at a Prenzlauer Berg café. For Switzerland, the move is only indirectly relevant: There is hardly any case law on review platforms here, almost no flood of lawsuits – and only a tentative attempt with the draft Communications Platforms Act (VE-KomPG) to align with the EU model. Italy is taking the opposite approach: Anyone who reviews there has had to prove since April 9, 2026, that they were actually on-site.

1. The Trigger Case: A Berlin Café, a Three-Star Review – and Google Deletes

In the podcast "Servus, Grüezi, Hallo," Lenz Jacobsen, political editor at Zeit Online, tells of a café in Prenzlauer Berg. The food was okay, but the price level seemed excessive from his perspective. The menu seemed interchangeable: avocado toast, eggs Benedict, granola – standard hipster café repertoire.

He gave three out of five stars and wrote that the café seemed like a business administration project for profit maximization. At first, the operator responded friendly. Later Google got in touch: The review had been deleted because the business had claimed defamation.

The case shows the fundamental problem in its typical German variant: A subjective critique becomes a legal dispute in a formalized platform procedure. Anyone who no longer has a receipt, photo, or other proof factually loses the review.

2. Why Germany Stands Out in the Statistics

Several current reports show that Germany stands out significantly in Europe for deletions due to defamation. Fast Company reported in October 2025, citing the DSA transparency database, that 99.97 percent of Google Maps reviews removed in the EU for "defamation" concerned businesses in Germany. This isn't a rounding difference, but a structural pattern.

German lawyer Rena Zulauf put this succinctly in an article in the Swiss trade magazine medialex: "Unlike in Switzerland, there is a veritable flood of lawsuits there, especially against Google." German district courts had established in a long series of judgments when a review must be deleted – and accordingly pushed platforms into an active duty of care.

This duty of care stems from a central ruling by the Federal Court of Justice from March 1, 2016 (VI ZR 34/15). If a reviewed person disputed that the anonymous reviewer was even a customer or patient, the platform had to initiate the complaint process, contact the reviewer, and delete if necessary. This logic now extends far beyond medical reviews.

3. What Google Has Made Visible Since Late April 2026

Google explains in its help section on "Defamation Removal Notices in Germany" that a notice may appear on business profiles in Germany if reviews have been removed following defamation complaints. The limitations are important:

• No exact numbers are shown, but ranges (1, 2–5, 6–10, 11–20, 21–50 to "over 250").
• Only deletions due to valid defamation complaints under German law are counted.
• Only the last 365 days are considered.
• Successfully restored reviews don't count.
• Local ranking should remain unchanged according to Google.

The display applies only in Germany. This notice does not appear for Swiss business profiles – for the simple reason that there is no comparable deletion practice in Switzerland.

4. The Swiss Special Situation: Hardly Any Case Law, Passive Platforms

In Switzerland, Art. 28 ZGB protects against unlawful personality violations. Additionally, the Federal Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) as well as the defamation offenses of the Criminal Code (defamation, slander, insult according to Art. 173 ff. StGB) may apply. On paper, the toolkit is similar to Germany – but hardly used in practice.

Rena Zulauf writes in medialex 05/25: "The problem of revenge reviews and the powerlessness of those being reviewed is neither new nor limited to the legal profession. Interestingly, there is hardly any case law on this topic in Switzerland. The lack of precedent cases additionally complicates legal action against platform operators."

The Swiss consumer portal 20 Minuten summarizes the difference succinctly: "Google cannot simply delete reviews here on demand, but companies must go to court." The Zurich Higher Court has set high requirements for deletion in its practice given freedom of expression.

Result: The constellation central to the German deletion industry – platform forwards complaint, reviewer doesn't respond, review disappears – doesn't exist in Switzerland in this form. Google acts defensively here because no Swiss court rulings force them into an active review process.

5. Swiss Examples: What Actually Happened

The debate wasn't entirely quiet, however. Three Swiss cases illustrate the legal reality:

District Court of Bülach, 2022 – the therapist and the false review. A 45-year-old woman had written a scathing Google review about an alternative medicine practice in the Zurich Unterland, calling the therapist snobbish and mocking her training. The proceedings revealed: The reviewer had never been to the practice. The District Court still acquitted her. The single judge's reasoning: "The criticism in the review does not concern her person, but her professional activity and therefore does not fall under the concept of honor in the criminal sense." Criminally, a fabricated review is therefore not automatically covered in Switzerland.

District Court of Zurich, 2021 (Judgment GG210008) – the dismissed nursing specialist. A 33-year-old nursing specialist had posted three negative Google reviews under pseudonyms after being summarily dismissed from a medical practice. The court had to decide whether the practice could successfully defend itself against the revenge reviews – a typical use case that would have long been standardized on BGH lines in Germany, but had to be handled as an individual case in Switzerland.

Federal Court, 2022 – Law firm Lucerne. A former client had given a Lucerne law firm the review "Minus five stars" and accused the "boss" of "incompetent behavior." The cantonal court convicted her of defamation. The Federal Court acquitted her on appeal: She could not have known that the accusations directed at the "boss" could personally affect a second name partner's honor. The Canton of Lucerne and the losing lawyer had to compensate the appellant with 1500 francs each.

Even this limited finding shows: In Switzerland, such proceedings often result in acquittals, not deletions. Anyone who wants to get rid of a Google review here has two options – reporting to Google according to their guidelines (with uncertain outcome) or civil lawsuit according to Art. 28 ZGB (with high effort and uncertain result).

6. Three Legal Spaces, Three Logics: EU, Germany, Switzerland, Italy

The differences can be read along three axes: Platform liability, burden of proof, and transparency.

EU (DSA, fully applicable since February 17, 2024). The Digital Services Act regulates platforms like Google Maps as "very large online platforms" (VLOP) in tiers. It requires reporting mechanisms, complaint systems, out-of-court dispute resolution, risk analyses, and transparency reports. The DSA does not define what "illegal content" is – that remains with national law. No general monitoring obligation exists (Art. 8 DSA).

Germany. Through national defamation law plus BGH case law on review obligations, a sharp deletion regime effectively emerges. Platforms must act when faced with substantiated complaints – otherwise they face cease and desist lawsuits. The high litigation density has created its own service industry. Heise regioconcept, law firms like advomare or dein-ruf.de offer commercial deletion procedures. Success rates of "about 90 percent" are openly communicated.

Switzerland. The DSA does not apply directly, but has extraterritorial effect for Swiss providers who direct their services to the EU area (as PwC Switzerland, VISCHER and datenrecht.ch agree). In October 2025, the Federal Council sent a draft for a Federal Act on Communication Platforms and Search Engines (VE-KomPG) for consultation; it ended in mid-February 2026. According to the Europe Institute of the University of Zurich, the draft closely follows the DSA – including the obligation for a Swiss contact point and legal representative, as HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte had already expected in 2023. The draft was postponed again in April 2025. It could easily take two to three years until it enters into force.

Italy. Here the burden of proof is radically reversed. Since April 9, 2026, a new law applies that was promoted by the Tourism Ministry under Daniela Santanchè. Reviews must be made within 30 days of using a service, may only come from people who actually used the service, and are considered particularly credible when supported by evidence such as receipts. After two years, entries automatically expire. The Italian competition authority AGCM monitors. Where Germany makes defamation visible after the fact and Switzerland largely looks away, Italy checks at the source.

7. The German Deletion Industry and Its Swiss Sister

In Germany, a market has emerged from the legal framework. Anyone who googles "Google Bewertung löschen" finds dozens of law firms and agencies. Heise regioconcept offers companies to check reviews for "deletability" and handle the complaint process with Google. This is a legitimate market reaction to a legal system that systematically enables deletion.

In Switzerland, there is a comparable but smaller offering: Providers like dotmade.ch refer directly to Google's own guidelines as the most important tool – not to Swiss law. Mobiliar and Handelszeitung both advise the route via UWG or Art. 28 ff. ZGB, but emphasize the courts' high discretionary scope. Zurich lawyer Martin Steiger, who specializes in digital law, summarized in the NZZ as early as 2019: "Service providers must let themselves be reviewed because the public interest outweighs this."

In plain terms: Swiss companies are more exposed to reviews than German ones – even when the reviews are unfair.

8. Fake Reviews, Purchased Stars and Review Extortion

The story is not one-dimensional. Google itself wrote in April 2026 in the German company blog that Maps is taking stronger action against fake reviews, spam, and fraud attempts. According to Google Deutschland, more than one billion reviews were published in 2025 and over 292 million reviews violating guidelines were blocked or removed. In the future, Gemini models should detect suspicious changes and fraud patterns more quickly.

Heise online also reported in April 2026 on Google's new AI and protection mechanisms. Platforms fight on two fronts: They must protect honest criticism while removing fake or abusive reviews. Both regularly go wrong.

9. Economic Leverage: Why Stars Carry So Much Weight

Reviews are a substitute for trust. Anyone who doesn't know a café, hotel, restaurant, or medical practice uses stars and comments as a shortcut. The BrightLocal Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 shows how strongly reviews influence decisions: 49 percent of consumers trust online reviews similarly to personal recommendations. 85 percent say positive reviews make them more likely to visit; 77 percent say negative reviews would deter them.

This explains why companies fight for every review. But it also explains why review platforms have become socially relevant – not just comment sections, but infrastructure for trust, visibility, and revenue.

10. What the New Transparency Brings – and What It Doesn't

The German Google display is progress, but not a complete solution. It helps because users can see if many reviews have been removed. Companies with very many deletions become in need of explanation. Manipulation of the review average becomes more visible.

It doesn't solve the problem because the deleted content itself is not visible. Only certain deletion reasons are captured. The display doesn't explain whether the deletions were justified or abusive. Honest companies with justified deletions also come under suspicion.

Handelsblatt formulated the question aptly in early May 2026: "Google informs about deleted reviews – what does it bring?" The answer is: More context, but not yet truth.

11. What Swiss Users Can Do Practically

Anyone reading Google reviews in Switzerland must calibrate differently than in Germany. There is no transparency display for deleted reviews because there are hardly any systematic deletions. But this doesn't mean the reviews are better – they're just less filtered.

A brief plausibility check:

1. Check number of reviews: 4.9 stars with 30 votes is less reliable than 4.4 with 2000.
2. Read texts, not just count stars: uniform five-star comments without details are suspicious.
3. Note user photos: they are often more meaningful than marketing images.
4. Judge company responses: factual responses are a good sign, defensive ones a warning signal.
5. Take concrete negative reviews seriously: a factual bad experience weighs more than general anger.
6. Compare multiple platforms: Google, Tripadvisor, Booking, Trustpilot, local media.

12. Conclusion: Three Models, One Consequence

Google reviews are a currency of trust. They are manipulated, fought, and legally administered. Three European models stand side by side in May 2026:

• Germany filters after publication – aggressively, legally, with its own industry. The new transparency display is an attempt to make the filtering itself visible.
• Italy filters before publication – through burden of proof and expiration dates.
• Switzerland hardly filters – lacking case law, lacking litigation pressure, and lacking platform regulation.

This is not a neutral position. It protects the freedom of expression of reviewers – and exposes small companies more harshly than elsewhere. With the VE-KomPG, Switzerland now has a proposal on the table that aligns with the DSA. Whether this actually becomes an effective instrument against revenge reviews and fake reviews depends on whether parliament wants more than a pro forma implementation.

The real question is therefore no longer: How many stars does a company have?

But in Germany: How many voices had to disappear for these stars to shine so brightly?

In Italy: Can the stay be proven?

In Switzerland: Who actually checks what – and under which law?

*This article is based on the episode of the podcast "Servus, Grüezi, Hallo" by Zeit, which covered the café example from Berlin's Prenzlauer Berg, as well