Can a company challenge critical publications by an NGO or media through business law?

Yes, a company can take action against critical publications by an NGO or media organization through the cease-and-desist claim under the Code of Economic Law (CEL). A March 30, 2026 ruling by the French-speaking enterprise court of Brussels confirms that non-profit organizations are also considered ‘businesses' and are therefore bound by the rules around unfair market practices and badmouthing. This provides businesses with an important tool to address reputational damage, but raises concerns about press freedom and the proliferation of so-called ‘SLAPP’ proceedings.

The facts and legal context

In a recent dispute, Kyrgyzstan's Bakai Bank and the non-profit organization Open Dialogue Foundation (ODF) crossed swords. ODF, a foundation established in 2009 to safeguard democracy and the rule of law, had published articles on its website accusing Bakai Bank of helping Russia circumvent international financial sanctions.

Bakai Bank thereupon demanded the immediate cessation of the publications and claimed substantial damages. The bank based this claim on articles VI.104 and VI.105, 10° of the Code of Economic Law (CEL). These provisions prohibit the communication of derogatory elements that may harm another company's professional interests or reputation, commonly known as ‘badmouthing. ODF defended itself by emphasizing that it acts as a ’social watchdog‘ (like the press) and invoked its constitutionally enshrined freedom of expression.

The decision and the law

The Brussels French-speaking business court ruled largely in favor of the bank on March 30, 2026.

First, the court confirmed that ODF legally qualifies as a “business” within the meaning of Book VI CEL. The fact that the NGO has no profit motive is secondary here; what is decisive is that the organization provides services in the marketplace in a sustainable manner, such as publishing reports to influence policy decisions.

The court then ruled that ODF's serious allegations lacked sufficient factual support. The court took offense that ODF had not conducted an “exhaustive audit” of the bank, and merely relied on general journalistic sources and statistics. As a result, according to the judgement, ODF exceeded the limits of freedom of speech. Although Bakai Bank's sky-high damage claims were dismissed for excessive, the judge did order ODF to make a publication. The NGO must publish the judgement at the top of its website for 30 days “without comment,” under penalty of a 10,000 euro daily fine. ODF's counterclaim, which labeled the bank's action as an agonizing and reckless lawsuit, was dismissed.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This judgement represents a striking application of economic law. Increasingly, parties are seeking to challenge editorial choices or critical reports through the CEL's B2B rules, a tactic often linked to ‘SLAPP’ (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) proceedings.

Where courts in previous cases, such as asbl Ecole de Clerheid t. RTBF from April 8, 2026, were still very reluctant to intervene preventively for fear of unauthorized censorship (in accordance with article 25 of the Belgian Constitution), the court here goes much further. However, the question arises as to whether the case law surrounding article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of speech) is sufficiently respected in balancing with Article 8 ECHR (protection of reputation).

The requirement that a social watchdog must conduct an ‘exhaustive audit’ of a company before being allowed to criticize it is a rather high threshold that makes the journalistic and social monitoring function de facto impossible. On top of that, the prohibition of posting any comments (“without comment”) on the condemnation online reeks of pre-emptive censorship regarding the further interpretation of that verdict. The line between the regulation of fair competition (for which the CEL originally served) and the curtailment of free speech blurs considerably here.

What this specifically means

• For nonprofit organizations, journalists and media: You are not legally immune from business law. Even as an NGO or journalistic platform, you are usually considered a ‘business’ with an economic activity. This means that you are exposed to injunction claims for badmouthing if you publish harsh claims about a company without your factual evidence being (almost absolutely) conclusive.
• For companies in a reputation crisis: This judgement confirms that you do have effective legal remedies against unjustified mudslinging campaigns, even if they come from idealistic organizations or the press. Business law (Book VI CEL) provides quick tools to protect your image through publication orders. However, you must guard the delicate balance; aggressive litigation can quickly be publicly framed as a ‘SLAPP,’ which can lead to further damage to your image.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a non-profit organization or NGO be considered a business?
Yes. Under Belgian business law, a functional concept is used. As soon as an organization (including a non-profit or NGO) offers services or goods in a sustainable manner, it qualifies as a business and falls under the rules of the Code of Economic Law.

Legally, what does one understand by ‘badmouthing’?
Badmouthing (or defamation) is an unlawful market practice in which a business disseminates critical or derogatory information that may harm the business interests, goods or services of another business. Even if facts are correct, the context or tone may cause the communication to legally qualify as badmouthing.

May a court prohibit the press or an NGO from commenting?
Although a court may impose the publication (preventive or otherwise) of a judgment as a remedial measure, an explicit prohibition against making “any comment” on such publication is legally highly controversial. This touches on the absolute limits of the right to freedom of expression and the constitutional prohibition of preventive censorship.

Conclusion

The line between protecting a brand from reputational damage and respecting press freedom is under high tension. Judgements successfully using business law against reports by NGOs or investigative journalists show that the legal playing field for companies in Belgium is widening, but also create a legal minefield regarding censorship.