A practical Austria guide for businesses facing a Google review that alleges counterfeit, fake or unauthorised goods, with supply-chain evidence, policy reporting and proportionate legal escalation.
Why Fact Versus Opinion Is The First Legal Question
A review saying that a business sells counterfeit, fake or unauthorised goods can affect customer trust, payment providers, marketplaces, suppliers and brand relationships. In Austria, the first task is to split the publication into testable propositions: which product and transaction are identified, what mark or authenticity feature is disputed, what the reviewer personally observed, and whether the wording states a fact, inference or opinion. The seriousness of the allegation does not by itself prove falsity, unlawfulness or eligibility for removal.
Labels do not decide the issue. Writing “in my opinion” does not automatically convert a concrete accusation into protected opinion, while a vivid phrase may be obvious exaggeration when read with the star rating, images and surrounding narrative. A disciplined file identifies the implied facts supporting the evaluation, what the reviewer appears to claim first-hand, and what can actually be proved or disproved. That classification guides platform reporting, public response and any legal advice; it does not promise removal or a court outcome.
Evidence Checklist: Test Each Sentence, Not The Overall Tone
Preserve the full review before contact or reply. Record the URL, profile, rating, publication and edit times, exact words, photographs and related posts. Build a restricted product file containing the order or visit record, SKU and batch data, supplier invoices, customs or import records where relevant, serial-number checks, authorised-distributor evidence, packaging photographs, staff notes, complaint history and any brand-owner verification. Keep originals separate from annotations and do not publish customer data, trade secrets or entire supplier contracts.
Match each factual proposition to contemporaneous material: contracts, bookings, invoices, payment and refund records, service logs, messages, policies, staff rosters and lawful CCTV retention. Record gaps as carefully as contradictions. Do not publish confidential customer files merely to win the public argument. If translation matters, preserve the original language and a careful working translation. The Google-facing packet should contain only the shortest non-confidential material needed for the chosen policy category; the fuller chronology belongs in the internal or lawyer file.
Google Policy And The Local Legal Frame
Google says a review is not eligible for removal merely because a business disagrees with it. The policy analysis should therefore remain separate from the local defamation analysis. A genuine but harsh opinion may comply with policy. A review may instead fit fake engagement, misrepresentation, harassment, personal information or another rule when the facts support that category. A legal request is a different route and should identify the exact URL, exact passage, local right relied on and why the requested action is proportionate.
For Austria, the working legal source is Austria Civil Code, section 1330 ABGB. It should be read with current local case law and procedure before any formal notice. Depending on the jurisdiction and context, the distinction may involve truth, honest opinion or fair comment, serious harm, reputation of legal persons, privacy, insult, public interest and available defences. Businesses should avoid copying a legal test from another country or treating a policy rejection as a final judicial decision.
A Public Response That Does Not Worsen The File
A public answer should usually be shorter than the evidence file. It can acknowledge the concern, say that the business is checking the matter against its records and invite the reviewer to a verified private channel. Avoid repeating the most damaging allegation, exposing personal data, calling the reviewer a liar or threatening proceedings before the classification and proof are complete. A restrained reply preserves options and reduces the risk that the business creates a second harmful publication of its own.
When Escalation Deserves Local Legal Review
Escalate for local review when the post identifies specific stock or serial numbers, includes apparently fabricated images, repeats across profiles, triggers a marketplace or payment hold, involves a brand-owner notice, or appears linked to extortion or a competitor. First verify whether any genuine sourcing, labelling or product-safety issue exists. Do not threaten the reviewer, alter records, overstate an authorisation, or use a removal request to hide an authentic consumer problem.
Related PimLegal Reading
For the wider legal framework, read our local guide to civil and criminal defamation rules and the Austria Google review removal page.
Selected Authoritative References
- Austrian Civil Code section 1330 ABGB (official consolidated text)
- Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC
- Google Maps prohibited and restricted content policy
- Google Business Profile review reporting guidance
- Google reporting for legal reasons
Practical Conclusion
Treat the counterfeit claim as a product-traceability and publication problem. Preserve the review, verify the supply chain, classify each sentence, choose the narrowest honest Google route, and keep the public response shorter than the evidence file. This method improves the decision without guaranteeing removal, regulator action or a legal outcome.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for a specific dispute in Austria. Obtain local advice before sending a formal notice, disclosing confidential records, making allegations about a reviewer or assuming that Google, a regulator or a court will act.