Executive Summary

Since late April 2026, Google has for the first time transparently displayed in Germany how many reviews have been deleted due to defamation complaints – triggered by a podcast case involving a Berlin café. Germany stands out across Europe: 99.97 percent of all EU deletions due to defamation affect German businesses. Switzerland, by contrast, follows a completely different logic: minimal case law on rating platforms, passive platform stance, no systematic deletions. Italy is taking a third path – since April 2026, reviewers must prove they actually used the service. The Swiss draft Communications Platforms Act (VE-KomPG) is oriented toward the EU model but is not yet in force.

People

Topics

  • Google reviews and platform liability
  • Defamation law in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy
  • Digital Services Act (DSA) and national implementation
  • Communications Platforms Act (VE-KomPG)
  • Revenge reviews and fake ratings
  • Trust infrastructure in digital space

Clarus Lead

The new Google transparency notice in Germany reveals a structural problem: a single country dominates the EU-wide deletion debate, while Switzerland deliberately regulates less and thus exposes small businesses differently. This creates a regulatory trap for decision-makers in politics and business – those oriented toward the DSA create visibility for manipulation; those who do not regulate protect freedom of expression but leave businesses at the mercy of unfair reviews. The Swiss legislative proposal (VE-KomPG) could break this asymmetry – or fail if parliament pursues only formal implementation rather than genuine protective duties.

Detailed Summary

The Berlin café example and German reality. The Zeit podcast «Servus, Grüezi, Hallo» described a case typical of Germany: journalist Lenz Jacobsen wrote a factual three-star review of a Prenzlauer Berg café, describing it as a business administration project aimed at profit maximization. The café reported defamation – Google deleted the review. This case is not an isolated incident in Germany but part of established legal practice. The German Federal Court of Justice established in 2016 that platforms have an active review duty: once a rated person disputes whether the reviewer was even a customer, Google must contact, verify, and potentially delete if necessary. This logic created its own "deletion industry" – law firms like advomare, heise regioconcept, and dein-ruf.de offer commercial deletion procedures with reported success rates of about 90 percent.

Swiss exceptionalism without regulation. Switzerland has similar legal tools as Germany (Art. 28 ZGB for personality violations, UWG, criminal code) but rarely uses them. Lawyer Rena Zulauf documented in the journal medialex: there is practically no case law on rating platforms, no flood of lawsuits, no precedent cases. The Zurich Court of Appeal has deliberately set high requirements for deletion given freedom of expression. Result: Google acts defensively in Switzerland because no court rulings compel active action. Three Swiss rulings demonstrate the pattern: the Bülach District Court (2022) acquitted a woman who wrote a false review of a therapist because her criticism concerned "professional activity" not "person." The Zurich District Court (2021) had to clarify whether revenge reviews from a dismissed nursing professional trigger damages – a single case that would already be standardized in Germany. The Federal Court (2022) acquitted a plaintiff who rated a law firm with "minus five stars" because it was unclear exactly whom she was defaming.

Three models in European comparison. Germany filters after publication – in legal form, with high review effort, made visible through the new transparency notice (ranges instead of exact figures: 1, 2–5, 6–10 to "over 250"). Important: the notice applies only to valid defamation complaints under German law, covers only the last 365 days, and does not account for restored reviews. Italy filters preventively – since April 9, 2026, reviewers must rate within 30 days of service use, provide proof like receipts, and entries automatically expire after two years. The Italian competition authority AGCM oversees. Switzerland filters hardly at all – due to lack of litigation pressure and lack of case law. This is, as Martin Steiger wrote in the NZZ in 2019, deliberate priority: "Service providers must accept ratings because the public interest outweighs other concerns." This protects freedom of expression but exposes small businesses harder than elsewhere.

Economic reality and missing protective instruments. The BrightLocal Consumer Review Survey 2026 shows the leverage: 49 percent trust online reviews like personal recommendations, 85 percent are motivated by positive reviews, 77 percent are deterred by negative ones. Google itself reported in 2025 that over one billion reviews were published and over 292 million violating ones were blocked or removed – massive filter activity that is not made visible except in Germany. The German transparency notice helps because users see whether many deletions occurred; however, it does not show whether these were justified or abusive, and only covers defamation cases, not spam or fake reviews.

Swiss draft and open questions. The VE-KomPG (submitted for consultation in October 2025, deadline mid-February 2026) is closely oriented toward the DSA. The Europa Institute at the University of Zurich confirms: the draft mandates Swiss contact points and legal representatives – exactly as HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte expected in 2023. However: two to three years are likely to pass before adoption. The critical question remains whether parliament creates genuine protective duties against revenge reviews and fake ratings or settles for formal compliance.

Core Statements

  • Germany has developed aggressive deletion practices; the new Google transparency notice makes this visible but does not define which deletions are justified
  • Switzerland deliberately protects freedom of expression through regulatory minimalism – this exposes businesses harder to unfair reviews than in Germany or Italy
  • Italy changes the filter logic: proof obligation on reviewers, automatic expiration after two years, tourism ministry oversees
  • The Swiss VE-KomPG could break this asymmetry but only with genuine protective duties, not as pro forma implementation
  • Reviews are trust infrastructure for business and consumers; their regulation is not technology-neutral but a political distribution question

Critical Questions

  1. Data quality DSA transparency: How reliable is the claim that 99.97 percent of all EU defamation deletions affect Germany? Does the DSA database really capture all European countries with equal reporting density, or do the figures mainly reflect that Germany has an established reporting industry?

  2. Conflicts of interest deletion service providers: What economic incentives do commercial providers (advomare, heise regioconcept) pursue when they communicate 90 percent success rates? How is "success" defined – every deletion or only successful appeal procedures?

  3. Representativeness of Swiss rulings: The analysis relies on three rulings (Bülach, Zurich GG210008, Federal Court Lucerne). Can one really draw conclusions about a nationwide Swiss pattern from such a small case number, or is there a large dark figure of out-of-court settlements and silent acceptance?

  4. Asymmetry effect on cross-border businesses: How does the regulatory asymmetry actually affect Swiss small businesses that also serve EU customers or are visible across multiple platforms? Is there empirical data on reputational damage?

  5. VE-KomPG implementation quality: The draft leans on the DSA – does this mean genuine review duties for Google, or does it remain a formal contact point duty without material protection against revenge reviews?

  6. Transparency notice as stigma: Does the German Google notice distort reputable businesses that have deleted legal defamations because the notice does not distinguish between spam, fakes, and substantive criticism? Can a business challenge or explain the notice?

  7. Italian model and anonymity: Can the Italian model with receipt and identity requirements really be transferred to platforms like Google Maps without effectively abolishing anonymous expression? Or does it merely create a new form of censorship through administrative barriers?

  8. Swiss user calibration: The article recommends Swiss users to "calibrate differently" than Germans – but are there empirical studies showing that Swiss reviews are actually less filtered and therefore less reliable?

Bibliography

Primary Source: Deleted Stars: How Google Reviews Become a Question of Trust – and Why Switzerland Is Legally a Different World – clarus.news, May 14, 2026

Supplementary Sources:

  1. Die Zeit: Podcast «Servus, Grüezi, Hallo»
  2. medialex 05/25: Rena Zulauf, «Rate Us on Google!»
  3. Federal Court of Justice: Ruling VI ZR 34/15 (Rating portal review duties)
  4. Google Germany: Defamation Removal Notices in Germany (April 2026)
  5. BrightLocal: Local Consumer Review Survey 2026
  6. EIZ UZH: «Known Risks, New Duties – Platform Liability in Transition» (January 2026)
  7. EU Commission: The Digital Services Act (DSA) Transparency Database
  8. Fast Company: «Germany's defamation laws skew Google reviews» (October 26, 2025)

Verification Status: ✓ May 14, 2026

This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial Responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-Check: May 14, 2026