Google Reviews Management — Legal Instruments
Google reviews are today one of the most visible forms of business reputation: for a potential client, a single false damaging review often works against the entire profile. The Georgian Civil Code regulates this space as well: a false fact entered in a review falls under the same legal regime as any other disseminated false statement. This page explains how this protection works in the Google context: what is demanded, from whom, and with which evidence.
The Legal Basis — What the Code Protects
The legal basis consists of three provisions. Article 18 of the Civil Code governs personal non-property rights: a person is entitled, through the court and in the manner established by law, to protect his honour, dignity, privacy of personal life, personal inviolability or business reputation from infringement. Where infringing statements have been disseminated through mass information media, their refutation must take place through the same media; where such data are contained in a document issued by an organization, the document must be replaced and interested persons informed. The injured person is also entitled to publish a reply in the same media.
Refutation, Reply and Correction of Documents
Under the same provision, the protection of this good operates regardless of the infringer's fault; where the violation results from a culpable act, the person may claim compensation for damage, including in the form of the profit the infringer obtained, and also compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage — independently of pecuniary damage. Where authorship or name is misused, the person may demand that the infringer cease the act; publication of a person's image without consent is likewise recognized as an infringement, subject to enumerated exceptions.
Grounds for Compensation of Damage
Article 992 sets the general ground: a person who, by an unlawful, intentional or negligent act, causes damage to another person is obliged to compensate it. Article 993 addresses pecuniary damage caused by defamation specifically: a person who intentionally or negligently disseminates or publicizes facts bringing pecuniary damage to another person must compensate the resulting damage if the facts are clearly incorrect. No obligation arises with respect to statements serving the protection of lawful public interests — this boundary sets the balance between free expression and the protection of reputation.
The practical conclusion is simple: there are two levels of protection. The first — the demands of cessation, refutation and correction — does not depend on the infringer fault and gives the injured party a rapid result. The second — monetary claims — requires culpability: pecuniary damage, profit and moral damage. Each level calls for its own evidence: without fault the first level works, while the second requires full-fledged court litigation. That is why the injured party must fix all circumstances in a timely manner and deploy the legal instruments before the evidentiary base erodes and the scale of the damage grows further. Finally, the Code recognizes authorship and the right to bear a name as objects of protection too: a person whose right to bear a name is infringed, or whose interests are infringed by unauthorized use of the name, may demand that the infringer cease the act — a norm that protects the commercial value of a name as well.
The Legal Specifics of Reviews
A Google profile is, for all practical purposes, an electronic medium of mass information — the refutation of false facts must likewise take place through the same medium, in the context of the same platform. The critical difference is that the author of a review is often anonymous, and identification requires an additional legal step; at the same time, under the Code protection operates independently of fault, so the demand of refutation starts immediately, while proof of culpability may be needed only for compensation of damage.
The practical approach runs in three stages: fixation — detailed documentation of the review with date, author identifiers and content; assessment — whether the statement is an assessment or an assertion of a concrete false fact; and response — a reply, a demand of refutation and, in case of culpability, compensation of damage including the infringer's profit. Article 993 gives the foundation precisely to this last layer: the intentional or negligent dissemination of clearly incorrect facts bringing pecuniary damage is subject to compensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can one act against a Google review?
Yes — a false fact entered in a review concerns a good protected by the Code just like any other publication; the difference lies only in the platform's technical details.
What to do with an anonymous review?
Fix everything visible on the platform and begin legal identification — anonymity does not cancel the right of claim.
Is every negative review defamation?
No — criticism and assessment are lawful; defamation concerns only clearly incorrect facts.
What damage can be claimed?
With culpability — pecuniary damage, the infringer's profit and moral damage; protection itself operates regardless of fault.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The Legal.ge team manages businesses' online reputation: assessing the legal nature of reviews, preparing replies and refutation demands, identifying authors and, where necessary, conducting court defence with compensation of damage. Contact us for an assessment of your profile grounded in the Code's provisions.