Negative online hotel review: assess factual assertions, opinions, evidence preservation and possible injunction, revocation or damages under section 1330 ABGB.
Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Austrian attorney-at-law
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte
Mag. Bernhard Brandauer assists with the legal assessment of tourism contracts, operating issues, levies and liability matters.
A negative online hotel review must be assessed by its precise wording. Verifiable factual assertions, personal opinions and mixed statements can have different legal consequences. Under section 1330 ABGB, damages, revocation and publication of a revocation may be considered when the statutory requirements are met.
For hotel operators and guests, the assessment starts with the unchanged original version. Preserve the URL, profile, date, time, screenshots and booking sequence. Only then can it be assessed whether a statement is false, contains a factual core or is a sharp but permissible opinion.
First classify the wording and preserve the original version. This helps distinguish a verifiable factual assertion, an opinion and an unclear combination of both.
Keep the link, screenshots, date, booking records and communication with the platform available.
Mark what can be verified sentence by sentence. Compare the statements with the booking, invoice, messages and actual sequence of events. Under section 1330(2) ABGB, it matters among other things whether a published fact is untrue and whether the author knew or should have known this.
Read the wording in its full context. A pointed assessment should be identified as an opinion, while any verifiable core must be examined separately. Preserve the complete text before assessing individual words in isolation.
Create a table with the original sentence, possible factual core, opinion and supporting record. For a mixed statement, the overall context determines the meaning an average reader is likely to understand.
Save your report, the platform response and the version that remains available. A platform decision does not finally determine the legal issue. The wording, place of publication and supporting records must remain together for the next assessment.
A factual assertion describes an event or condition that can generally be checked with evidence. This may include an allegation that a hotel did not provide a confirmed room, issued an invoice twice or refused a specific service. The statement must be assessed in the context of the complete review.
An opinion expresses a personal assessment. Words such as “unfriendly”, “disappointing” or “poorly organised” may be evaluative. A pointed phrase is not automatically an opinion, however, if it conveys a specific false factual core to readers.
Many reviews combine both levels. The sentence “The staff were unfriendly because they turned us away despite our reservation” contains an assessment and a verifiable allegation. Each statement should therefore be marked separately and then read in the overall context. Looking only for individual insulting words is not enough for the legal classification.
Section 1330(1) ABGB concerns an insult to honour that causes actual loss or loss of profit. Section 1330(2) ABGB also covers the publication of facts that threaten another person’s credit, business or advancement where the publisher knew or should have known that they were untrue. For a hotel business, the public review setting can be important when assessing the reach of the statement.
The assessment therefore requires separate questions: What exactly was alleged? Is the statement true or false? To whom was it accessible? What concrete disadvantage is claimed? And are there indications that the untruth was known or should have been recognised after a careful check? A low rating alone answers none of these questions.
For untrue damaging facts, the statute also refers to revocation and publication of the revocation. Damages require further conditions. An injunction must be examined as a separate claim with regard to the content, risk of repetition and dissemination. The legal response follows from the individual review and its setting, not simply from the fact that the hotel considers it unfair.
A hotel review can influence the decisions of future guests. It is therefore important whether the post describes a specific stay, whether the author reports from personal experience and whether the statement is framed as an experience or as a general allegation about the business. Personal criticism of a stay has a different meaning from an allegation that a hotel systematically deceives its guests.
A communication in the course of business can also raise competition-law questions. Section 1 UWG addresses unfair commercial practices and other unfair acts and refers to injunctions and, where there is fault, damages. Whether a specific review or response falls within that framework depends on its function, content and capacity to influence conduct. This assessment does not replace the assessment under section 1330 ABGB.
Hotel operators should therefore classify their own response as well. A factual reply to criticism has a different purpose from a campaign against the author or publication of personal data. Guests should likewise distinguish a documented personal experience from a broad allegation about the whole business.
Preserve the review with the complete URL, profile name, date, time and visible platform context. Save screenshots showing the rating, heading, text and any replies together. Keep the original file and an unchanged PDF or web version. A copied sentence often no longer shows where or when it was originally published.
Connect the review with the specific stay. The booking confirmation, invoice, room number, messages, complaint and hotel response may show which event is being described. If the author’s status as a guest is disputed, that question requires its own records. Assumptions about identity or motives are not evidence.
Record every later change, including edits, deletion, new replies, platform reports and contact attempts. A short chronology with date, sender, statement and response prevents the original text from being confused with a later version.
A report should identify the specific post and quote the disputed sentences verbatim. Explain which statement is said to be factually false, which record contradicts it and whether the post contains a personal impression or an allegation of fact. A general label such as reputational harm makes a focused assessment more difficult.
Attach only the records needed for the assessment. These may include booking documents, invoices, messages or an internal account of events. Cover personal data of other guests and employees where it is not required for the particular statement.
Keep the submitted report and the platform response. Removal may follow platform rules without answering every civil-law question. Conversely, a refusal does not automatically make the review legally harmless. The wording, evidence and reasons must be assessed together.
A public reply should address the concrete sequence and move further clarification to an appropriate contact channel. It may explain that the operator is checking the described event against booking records. A general counterattack distracts from the facts and may create new legal problems of its own.
Do not publish room numbers, health information, payment details or other information that identifies a guest. Even accurate information does not automatically belong in a public reply. A short factual statement and an invitation to clarify the matter directly are often sufficient for the public response.
If the guest criticises a specific service, the operator should compare its records with the review. Where the booking, sequence and response match, a correction or addition can be offered. If a factual assertion remains unclear, careful wording is safer than a public position that later cannot be supported.
An injunction may be considered in response to continuing or repeated publication where the legal requirements are met in the individual case. The review, its truth or insulting effect, reach, risk of repetition and available evidence all matter. A platform report does not replace this assessment.
A revocation addresses the correction of an untrue factual assertion. Section 1330(2) ABGB also provides for publication of the revocation under the conditions stated there. Damages additionally require a concrete loss or loss of profit and the other applicable requirements. Effects on bookings or turnover should therefore be documented in a traceable way.
Time matters when further publication is threatened. Preserve the content before requesting deletion or change and have the direction of any claim assessed from the complete facts. A claim for an injunction is not supported merely because a fair criticism has a negative commercial effect.
The initial file should contain the original review, platform data, booking confirmation, invoice, service description and actual sequence of events. Add complaints, replies, photographs, witness contacts and communication about removal. Assign each record to a specific sentence of the review.
Hotel operators should also preserve availability records, room status, internal incident notes and approval of the public response. Guests should separate their own observations from statements by others and keep records in the form received. The file should show what is established and which points remain open.
The articles on the wrong hotel room category and evidence after a hotel incident concern different situations but raise related documentation questions. Price and hospitality information follow their own assessments, for example in the article on the resort fee at checkout and the article on allergen information in catering.
Key point: Preserve the complete review and separate verifiable facts from opinions. Section 1330 ABGB depends on the specific statement, its truth or insulting effect and further requirements. A public reply should remain factual and must not reveal guest data. Injunctions, revocation and damages must be assessed from the original wording, place of publication and supporting records.
Assess service deviation, price reduction and replacement separately.
Document the sequence, condition and response of the business.
Classify price information and additional booking components.
Separate oral information, records and business procedures.
Briefly describe the business, location, parties and issue. We will discuss which documents and next review step may be useful.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000