Online Critique: Is the Identity of Employer Reviews Kept Secret?
Employer's Inquiry into Anonymous Online Criticism: A Legal Perspective
When an employee vents their frustration after dismissal anonymously, they can criticize their former employer on employer rating platforms. However, can the company find out who's behind the criticism?
According to lawyer Swen Walentowski, spokesperson for "anwaltauskunft.de", employers have limited preventive measures against anonymous criticism on employer rating platforms. The company's rights to delete a critical post are only valid if it can be definitively proven that the company and the reviewer had no prior contact.
The identity of those leaving feedback for their employer on a rating platform remains secure, even though the company has no right to demand that the rating platform disclose the identity of the anonymously reviewing user. As long as the platform can justify that there was no actual contact between the reviewer and the company, it is prohibited by law to reveal personal information. This is clear from a ruling by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Dresden (Az.: 4 U 744/24).
In one case, it was about a user's review on an employer rating platform with the title "Worst employer of all time". The employer attempted to have the review removed, claiming no knowledge of any contact with the reviewer. The platform responded by asking the anonymous reviewer for evidence. The reviewer provided anonymized documents such as an employment contract and training certificates, which were forwarded to the employer.
Nevertheless, the company deemed this insufficient and demanded that the platform reveal the critic's identity to verify the alleged contact. The platform refused to disclose personal data. As a result, the company filed a lawsuit to have the review deleted.
In its judgment, the Higher Regional Court in Dresden dismissed the lawsuit. There was no claim for injunctive relief, and the platform operator was not held responsible. Although the platform has a duty to examine a review if it is challenged, it fulfilled this duty in this case. The court emphasized that full disclosure of the reviewer's identity is generally not permitted.
Platforms are only required to check whether there was actual contact and provide the rated company with data-compliant information. However, disclosure is only permitted under strict conditions and must be ordered by a court.
Overall:Under German and EU law, the ability of an employer to compel a rating platform to reveal the identity of an anonymous critic depends on a careful balance of several legal interests, including data protection, freedom of expression, and the rights of employers to defend themselves against defamation or false accusations.
In cases where anonymous critiques are critical but lawful, the reviewer's identity is generally protected, and disclosure isn't compelled. If the critique contains defamatory or unlawful statements, the affected employer may pursue legal action to uncover the critic's identity. However, German courts require strong justification and evidence that the statements aren't merely critical but also unlawful. Courts weigh the right to freedom of expression against the right to personal honor and reputation.
Rating platforms aren't legally obligated to automatically disclose the identities of anonymous users. However, if a court finds sufficient legal grounds, for example, in cases of criminal or civil defamation, it may order the platform to provide the necessary information to identify the user.
There is no specific German law directly regulating anonymous online reviews or ratings. The relevant framework is provided by general civil law, data protection law, and jurisprudence. The concept of "anonymity-washing" highlights the difficulty of determining effective anonymization and when disclosure can be compelled. Under this law, employers cannot unilaterally force a rating platform to reveal the identity of an anonymous critic. Such disclosure requires a court order, granted only when there is credible evidence that the critic has broken the law, such as through defamation or false claims. Data protection and freedom of expression rights provide strong protections for anonymity in most cases.
Community policy should address the issue of anonymous online criticism, outlining the platform's stance on vocational training and its role in fostering a positive work environment. Implementing technology that verifies user identities could aid in resolving disputes and ensuring freedom of expression while maintaining respect for privacy.
In light of the legal precedent set by the Higher Regional Court in Dresden, rating platforms must strike a balance between data protection, freedom of expression, and employers' rights to defend against defamation or false accusations. Adopting a policy that encourages constructive criticism while protecting users' identities could foster a more productive community.
