LinkedIn Reputation as a Legal Subject
Professional networks such as LinkedIn are today one of the main showcases of business reputation: recruiters, partners and clients see the first impression precisely there. Defamation published on this platform is therefore an attractive target for careers and sales. Georgian law gives two anchors here: the right to a name and personal non-property rights under the Civil Code, and the tort of disseminating damaging information. The platform's internal rules do not replace these constructions; legal protection is built on the general norms.
The Right to a Name and Misuse of Identity
Every physical person has the right to a name, which includes the first name and surname. The first part of Article 18 of the Civil Code adds: a person deprived of the right to bear a name, or whose interests are harmed by unauthorised use of the name, may demand cessation of the act or its repudiation. In LinkedIn practice this means: a fake profile, an account opened in your name, or content written under your identity is unauthorised use of the name, and demanding its cessation is protected by law. The fifth part of the same article also covers images: publishing a person’s photograph, film or video without consent falls within this protection — except where the taking is connected with public recognition, with the position held, with the demands of justice or the police, with scientific, educational or cultural purposes, took place in a public setting, or the person received remuneration for posing. A fake profile opened with another’s photograph answers this norm doubly: it is unauthorised use of the name and a published image without consent.
Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation
A person has the right, through the court and in the manner established by law, to protect honour, dignity, the secrecy of private life, personal inviolability or business reputation from infringement. In the LinkedIn context, infringement of business reputation is the most frequent form: false statements about professional activity, unsubstantiated assertions about competence, or defamation of former employers fall within this right. Infringing information must be refuted through the same means, and the right to publish response information also exists.
The Defamation Tort and the Public-Interest Exception
The basis of a claim for compensation is Article 993 of the Civil Code: a person who intentionally or negligently disseminates or publicises facts damaging to another person's property must compensate the damage arising therefrom, where these facts are evidently incorrect. At the same time, no obligation to compensate arises for statements that serve the protection of lawful public interests. In LinkedIn disputes this exception matters: a critical statement about professional conduct in a public discussion may serve the protection of public interests, and then no compensation arises. The boundary is that the statement must be factual and evidently incorrect.