BGH grades in physician internet review portals may require supporting documents

BGH maintains the principle of anonymity of users
(Jur). The operators of a rating portal on the Internet must investigate a complaint exactly. So they are to ask the evaluator for a precise opinion and to send possible documents, judged on Tuesday, 1. March 2016, the Federal High Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe (Az .: VI ZR 34/15). However, the principle of anonymity did not touch the Karlsruhe judges. In addition, audit obligations should not unnecessarily complicate the operation of a rating portal.
In the dispute, a dentist complained against the physician review portal jameda.de. There patients can search for a doctor and rate their practice visit in areas such as "treatment" and "relationship of trust" with a school grade.

Internet rating portals: No right to anonymous reviews. Picture: contrast workshop - fotolia

The dentist had received the overall grade of 4.8 from a user. He speculates that the valuer could not have been treated by him. On complaint of the dentist Jameda had deleted the evaluation first. The complaint was sent by the platform operator to the user for comments. After its answer, the rating was set again.

Thereupon the dentist complained of omission and demanded information as to how it came to the decision.

The BGH had already decided several times on evaluation portals. According to this, doctors can not be removed from the portal, but have to accept the assessments (judgment and JurAgentur report dated 23 September 2014, ref .: VI ZR 358/13). The BGH also emphasized the legal principle of anonymity (judgment and JurAgentur report of 1 July 2014, ref .: VI ZR 345/13). Platform operators do not need to check comments and ratings in advance; it is sufficient if they investigate complaints and then delete the evaluation if necessary (judgment and JurAgentur report dated 19 March 2015, file no .: I ZR 94/13). Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg recently emphasized freedom of expression on the Internet (judgment and JurAgentur Report of 2 February 2016, Ref .: 22947/13).

The Federal Court of Justice held on in its new judgment on these principles now. But for the first time he specified how the inspection obligations of the portal operators look like. "A service provider is not required to impose an audit obligation that jeopardizes his business model economically or makes his work disproportionately difficult," emphasized the Karlsruhe judges.

On the other hand, it is precisely the anonymity of rating portals that makes false accusations or other breaches of privacy particularly easy. Without the portal operators, sufferers, here concerned doctors, would have no opportunity to act against the anonymous claims.

In this area of ​​conflict, the portal operator may protect the anonymity of its users. But he had to check complaints and ask the user for an opinion. In the case of the doctor, he would have to describe his practice visit exactly. As far as possible, he must also submit documents "such as bonus booklets, recipes or other evidence", which prove his visit to the practice.

As far as the anonymity can be maintained, the review portal must pass such documents - possibly with blackening - to the doctor, decided the BGH.

In a statement, Jameda emphasized that anonymous medical assessments "provided more transparency about the quality of the medical profession" and thus facilitated the patient's choice of doctor. But critical reviews could only stay on the net if users cooperate and respond to queries. Without the patient's consent, Jameda would not pass on any documents to the doctor, said the portal operator in Munich. (Mwo / fle)