Part II: Reputation protected—how does the law safeguard a business’s good name?
Freedom of expression is a foundation of democratic society. It lets us share experiences, warn others about dishonest practices and openly assess products and services. A functioning market without criticism is hard to imagine. Equally unacceptable is a situation where “I am entitled to my opinion” permits unrestricted falsehoods or destruction of a reputation built over years.
“Not recommended”, “avoid at all costs”, “fraudsters”, “the worst company I have dealt with”. On social media and review platforms, such comments can reach hundreds or thousands within minutes. Some are justified criticism, others emotion, others cross legal boundaries. The line between permissible opinion and infringement of a business’s good name is not always easy to identify.
Free speech does not mean a right to say everything
In part I, we showed that reputation is a legally protected personal interest. A business cannot, however, demand removal of every unfavourable review. Protection must be balanced against freedom of expression under Poland’s Constitution[1] and the European Convention on Human Rights[2].
Most disputes arise at this intersection. There is no universal boundary test. The Supreme Court repeatedly stresses individual assessment of all circumstances[3].
Constitutional and Convention protection is the starting point. People may publicly assess businesses and their offerings, but expression is not absolute.
Courts remind us that publishing carries responsibility. Others’ reputations are protected too. Article 10(2) allows statutory restrictions necessary in a democratic society to protect reputation and others’ rights, recognising that expression carries duties and responsibilities.
False information generally does not enjoy protection. The Supreme Court expressly states that falsehoods infringing personal interests exceed permissible expression and manipulation of reality is unacceptable[4].
In practice, however, many statements are evaluative rather than purely factual.
Facts and opinions—why the distinction matters
Distinguishing factual allegations from value judgments is crucial.
A fact can be verified as true or false, for example:
- “the company did not complete the order on time”;
- “the business is behind on payments”;
- “the company lacks required permits”.
These face a truth test. False statements may trigger liability. Reconstructing events and comparing them with the communication’s content and meaning often drives the dispute. Greater divergence means greater risk of unlawful interference.
Value judgments differ. Statements such as:
- “in my opinion, the service was unprofessional”;
- “I do not recommend this restaurant”;
- “I am disappointed with the service quality”;
generally cannot be classified as true or false.
That does not mean complete freedom.
The Warsaw Court of Appeal requires evaluations to be fair and sufficiently fact-based. Even an opinion may exceed legitimate criticism if it manipulates facts or entirely ignores events[5].
Must a business tolerate criticism?
Definitely. Often more than an ordinary person. A recent Supreme Court judgment says professional providers should be more resilient to substantive, even forceful consumer criticism than consumers to criticism by businesses[6]. A harsh negative review alone is not an infringement. The law protects against criticism exceeding permissible limits, not against being assessed at all. Publicly offering goods and services naturally attracts critical evaluations.
Customers may tell others they disliked fulfilment, product quality or service. Strong language is permissible if grounded in actual experience and expressing an assessment. Criticism helps other consumers make informed decisions and gives businesses feedback.
When does criticism go too far?
“It is only my opinion” does not protect every statement.
Boundaries are particularly exceeded where the author:
- attributes false facts;
- knowingly omits circumstances changing the assessment;
- makes allegations with no factual basis;
- aims to discredit the business rather than criticise its services.
Case law identifies allegations of financial unreliability, poor service, mistreatment of customers or staff, and dishonest business conduct as particularly damaging[7]. Actual customer loss need not be proved: threatening the trust necessary for business may suffice.
Reach also matters
Good name concerns third-party perceptions. Reputation is infringed only when the statement is communicated to others.
The Warsaw Court of Appeal defines a legal person’s good name as positive perceptions among those around it concerning its business, products or services[8]. Assessment is objective, based on audience reception rather than officers’ subjective feelings. What matters is potential influence on customers, counterparties and other market participants.
The Szczecin Court of Appeal likewise requires a discrediting statement to reach third parties and become public[9]. Online publications are particularly significant: social media, Google reviews, trade sites and forums can reach unlimited audiences and have much greater effects than a critical conversation among a few people.
No simple answers
These disputes rarely reduce to truth versus falsehood. They usually require balancing freedom of opinion with protection of good name.
Courts call this one of the hardest tasks in personal-rights cases[10]. Content, context, purpose, factual basis and the average recipient’s understanding all matter.
One general principle is possible: criticism is permissible even when harsh and unpleasant, whereas false information and factually unsupported evaluations generally are not. The law protects criticism, not falsehood. But this is not absolute: exceptionally, ECtHR case law indicates that untruth alone need not remove protection where the author acted in good faith and diligently checked facts[11].
What next?
Establishing infringement does not solve everything. How can a harmful post be removed, evidence preserved, an anonymous author identified and claims pursued?
Part III will address practical protection tools and responses to unlawful attacks on a business’s good name.
[1] Article 54 of Poland’s Constitution of 2 April 1997 (Journal of Laws no. 78, item 483, as amended).
[2] Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950, amended by Protocols 3, 5 and 8 and supplemented by Protocol 2 (Journal of Laws 1993, no. 61, item 284, as amended).
[3] See Supreme Court order of 29.06.2021, II CSK 555/20; Supreme Court order of 19.04.2022, I CSK 1217/22.
[4] See Supreme Court order of 19.04.2022, I CSK 1217/22.
[5] See judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 22.07.2021, I ACa 401/21.
[6] See Supreme Court judgment of 21.01.2025, II CSKP 142/23.
[7] See, for example, judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lublin of 28.04.2020, I ACa 97/20.
[8] Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 13.04.2021, I ACa 93/21, LEX no. 3189041.
[9] See judgment of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 28.07.2022, III APa 6/22.
[10] See, for example, Supreme Court judgment of 8.12.2020, I NSNc 44/20, OSNKN 2021, no. 1, item 5.
[11] See, for example, ECtHR judgment of 20 May 1999 in Bladet Tromsø A/S i Stensaas v Norway, application no. 21980/93.
