How to remove a Google review (fake or defamatory): doctors, hotels, restaurants, e-commerce…

A business discovers on its Google Business Profile a series of one-star reviews signed by people who have never been its customers. The question is always the same: how do you remove a fake Google review, identify its author and obtain compensation?

The answer is yes, a fake Google review can be removed, provided three mistakes are avoided: believing that a simple report to Google will be enough, choosing the wrong legal characterisation between disparagement and defamation, and letting time slip by, since some actions are time-barred after three months.

An online review is a consumer's opinion about their experience (Article D111-9 of the French Consumer Code). One important point: that experience counts even without a purchase. A prospect disappointed by a phone call or an in-store visit gives a genuine review, even without paying anything.

A fake Google review is something else: its author had no real experience with the business. It is the paid review, the coordinated fraudulent review campaign, the message from a competitor, a former employee or an adversary posing as a customer. Medical and paramedical professionals, doctors, surgeons, dentists, physiotherapists, vets, clinics and group practices, are among the most exposed targets, since their Google listing largely drives new appointment bookings.

A Google review is not fake because it is harsh: it is fake when its author never had the slightest experience with the business.

Disparagement means bringing a company's products or services into disrepute (Article 1240 of the French Civil Code). Courts only sanction it where the statements do not concern a matter of general interest, rest on no serious factual basis, or go beyond measured criticism.

Against a negative but genuine Google review, however harsh, such an action rarely succeeds: courts give broad protection to a consumer's freedom to criticise, even in blunt language.

A fake review changes everything. That protection assumes a real experience. Once the business shows it never existed, the disparaging review becomes a civil wrong. Courts have sanctioned reviews about a restaurant the authors had never visited, reviews meant to pressure a hair salon, and the scheme of a former intern announcing a business had closed in order to divert its customers.

Everything therefore turns on evidence: cross-checking the customer file against pseudonyms, dating the reviews, and having a judicial commissioner formally record suspicious profiles and series posted back to back.

Everything turns on evidence: the point is not to contest the criticism, but to show that the consumption experience never existed.

Healthcare professionals are particularly exposed to fake Google reviews, because their Business Profile is often the first point of contact with patients. For a doctor, dental surgeon or surgeon, the difficulty is twofold: proving the absence of a professional relationship, and responding without breaching medical confidentiality, since any reply to a review risks indirectly revealing that someone was a patient. The Chambéry Court of Appeal recalled, in its ruling of 22 May 2025 (No. 22/01814), that a Google Business Profile created without a healthcare professional's consent may violate the GDPR, notably because of this risk to medical confidentiality. This decision strengthens Google's obligation to remove disputed reviews targeting healthcare professionals promptly. (Read our article on the subject)

When the review no longer targets products or services but a person, for instance a manager named and accused of misappropriation, violence or fraud, or a healthcare practitioner accused of malpractice, of holding a fake diploma or of inappropriate behaviour, the Google review becomes defamatory: you leave disparagement for defamation, governed by the Act of 29 July 1881. Where such attacks target a director or a healthcare professional personally and repeat over time, they may also amount to cyberbullying.

That shift matters: the time limit to act drops to three months from publication, the procedure is highly formal, and a mistake in characterisation makes the claim inadmissible.

Before any offensive, reply publicly, factually and calmly, contesting the very existence of the visit:"we find no trace of your visit to our establishment". That reply documents the dispute and will be useful before a judge. No excess: it would turn against you.

At the same time, preserve the evidence. A review can be edited or deleted at any moment: a judicial commissioner's report fixes the wording, the profiles, the ratings and the dates.

How to reply publicly to a fake Google review: what to write and what to avoid.

A useful reply fits in three lines: a note that the visit could not be traced, an invitation to make contact privately, and a mention that the review is being verified. For example:"After checking our records, we find no trace of your visit. We invite you to contact us directly so we can understand where this comes from. This review is being verified."What to avoid at all costs: naming a competitor, disclosing information about a customer or a patient, which for a healthcare practitioner would breach medical confidentiality, and adopting an aggressive tone that the other side will later produce in court.

Reporting a review through Google Business Profile flags content that breaches the platform's policies. Used on its own, it delivers poor results, and many businesses find that Google does not remove the reported review. What changes everything is a formal notice sent to the platform by a lawyer, reasoned under the European Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires platforms to examine notices, answer with a reasoned decision and provide an internal appeal.

That formal notice has immediate legal effect: the platform can no longer claim ignorance of the content, and it may be held liable if it fails to promptly remove manifestly unlawful content.

This is the route we favour to remove an isolated fake Google review that has been online for some time with no new salvo, and that our analysis characterises as disparaging or defamatory. In our experience, a well drafted formal notice, supported by a complete evidence file, succeeds in the vast majority of cases. Our regular exchanges with the platform's counsel also allow documented files to be handled faster.

Isolated, settled reviews: formal notice to Google to obtain removal. Repeated attacks: action against the author and lifting of anonymity to stop the behaviour.

If the author is identifiable, whether a known customer, a recognisable competitor or a former colleague, a formal notice sent directly is often the fastest first step. It precisely identifies the disputed review, explains why the alleged customer experience is fictitious or why the statements are unlawful, sets out the appropriate legal basis, and demands removal within twenty-four to forty-eight hours.

The notice should be supported by concrete evidence, such as customer or appointment records, dated screenshots and, where appropriate, a judicial commissioner's report. It is sent by email and registered post whenever the author's contact details are available. It also requires the attacks to stop, preserves the right to seek compensation and warns that repeated publication may lead to proceedings and, if necessary, an application to identify an anonymous author.

This step is not a mere warning. It creates a dated record that the author was informed of the falsity or unlawful nature of the review. If the author refuses to remove it or republishes the allegations, that refusal may help establish bad faith and support an urgent removal and damages claim. In practice, many authors remove a fake review once they understand that they can be sued personally.

When fake Google reviews come back in waves, removal is no longer enough: the behaviour must be stopped at source. The priority then becomes action against the author, preceded where necessary by court-ordered lifting of anonymity.

In most cases the author hides behind a pseudonym. The law requires platforms to retain the data enabling identification of those who post content online, and a judge can order that data to be disclosed to the targeted business (Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

On 26 February 2025, the Cour de cassation also held that the impossibility of identifying the author does not prevent a judge from ordering removal of the review.

Since the ruling of 26 February 2025, being unable to identify the author no longer prevents removal of the Google review.

Removing a Google review does not repair the harm. Once the author is identified, a compensation claim is possible: five years to sue for disparagement, only three months for defamation.

The harm is established through the drop in the overall rating, turnover trends, statements from deterred customers and the cost of remedial measures.

Where reviews are isolated and settled, the sequence is simple: preserve the evidence, reply publicly, then send Google a documented formal notice. It is the fastest and most discreet route to removal, and it is usually enough.

Where the attack is repeated, the author must be targeted: court-ordered lifting of anonymity where needed, a removal action, then a compensation claim. That is the only way to durably stop the behaviour, as part of a broader e-reputation strategy.

In both cases, the more recent the fraudulent review campaign, the easier its falsity is to prove. The only real mistake is to wait.

INFLUXIO is a law firm whose lawyers are members of the Paris Bar, dedicated to digital law and e-reputation. Our lawyers handle the entire sequence for businesses, medical and paramedical professionals (doctors, surgeons, dentists, physiotherapists, vets, clinics), retailers, agencies and creators facing fraudulent review campaigns.

We start with an audit of the disputed reviews and the gathering of evidence. We then settle the right characterisation: disparagement falling under unfair competition, defamation, or misleading commercial practice where the review comes from a competitor.

Where the reviews are isolated and settled, we send Google a reasoned formal notice: that is our first move, and our day-to-day dialogue with the platform's counsel lets us handle these files quickly.

What we see in practice: for isolated, plainly fictitious reviews, a documented formal notice usually draws a response from the platform within a few days to a few weeks, with no court proceedings. Litigation is reserved for refusals to remove and for repeated campaigns.

Where the attack is repeated, we target the author: court-ordered lifting of anonymity if they hide behind a pseudonym, then a removal and compensation action before the judicial court to stop the behaviour for good.

Finally compensation: quantifying the harm and suing the identified author, supplemented where needed by long-term e-reputation support combining the legal dimension with crisis communication.

Fraudulent reviews must be handled urgently: the more recent the salvo, the easier it is to demonstrate its artificial nature. Contact the firm: we answer every enquiry within 24 hours.