Can you criticize an opponent in a crowdfunding campaign without being guilty of defamation?

Victims of alleged fraud or malpractice sometimes start online fundraising campaigns to finance their legal battles. But is it permissible to name the opposing party in the description of such a campaign and accuse them of a “bullying lawsuit” or “SLAPP”? The answer is yes, under strict conditions. As long as the allegations are supported by facts and contribute to a public debate, the court will rule that freedom of expression and the right to defense outweigh the damage to the reputation of a public figure.

The facts: a real estate dispute and an online support campaign

This case revolves around a conflict between an entrepreneur and the founder of a non-profit organization that advocates for victims of dubious real estate transactions. Various proceedings were already underway in the Netherlands and abroad concerning these real estate issues.

To pay the non-profit organization's mounting legal fees, the defendant set up an online fundraising campaign. In the text of this crowdfunding campaign, the claimant (the entrepreneur) was initially named. The text stated, among other things:

• That the entrepreneur took revenge with a “bullying lawsuit” or a “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).
• That the lawsuit was intended to financially ruin the non-profit organization and silence it.
• That there was “alleged fraud”.

The entrepreneur felt that his honor and good name had been damaged and initiated summary proceedings. He demanded that the campaign be taken offline and that it be prohibited from recurring, linked to a penalty payment.. Although the campaign had already been taken offline before the verdict, the proceedings continued.

The decision: freedom of expression takes precedence

On 12 November 2025, the Dutch-speaking court of first instance in Brussels dismissed the entrepreneur's claim as unfounded.

The judge ruled that the text of the support campaign did not constitute an unlawful act, for the following reasons:

1. No obvious falsehoods: The terms “alleged fraud” and “SLAPP” did not come out of nowhere, but were based on previous press articles and the ongoing legal context.
2. Public figure: The entrepreneur is a public figure involved in a matter of public interest (questionable real estate transactions). He must therefore be able to tolerate a greater degree of criticism than a private individual.
3. Right to defense: The support campaign served to raise funds for legal assistance. Prohibiting such a campaign would deprive the non-profit organization of the financial means to defend itself (violation of the principle of “equality of arms” under Article 6 of the ECHR).

The court ordered the entrepreneur to pay increased legal costs of €3,500.00 because the claim was considered intimidating.

Legal analysis and interpretation

In this ruling, the judge in summary proceedings makes a classic weighing of interests between two fundamental rights: the right to respect for private life and good reputation (Article 8 of the ECHR) of the entrepreneur on the one hand, and the freedom of speech (Article 10 of the ECHR) of the activist on the other hand.

The role of the SLAPP doctrine

Although the European directive against strategic lawsuits (SLAPP Directive) had not yet been transposed into Belgian law at the time of the ruling (this must be done by May 7, 2026), the judge already applies its principles in the assessment. The judge views legal actions that appear to be aimed at financially exhausting (“draining”) the opposing party with “the utmost suspicion.” The fact that the entrepreneur attempted to cut off his opponent's source of financing (crowdfunding) was seen as confirmation of this intimidating nature.

Prima facie assessment in summary proceedings

In summary proceedings, the judge does not rule on the merits of the case, but assesses whether there is an “appearence of right”. The judge ruled that although the wording used was harsh, it was sufficiently substantiated by public sources and press articles. The use of the word “alleged” in the term fraud is crucial here; it shows that the author has built in caution.

Abuse of rights and legal costs

The punishment via court costs is striking. Bringing a claim without prior notice of default, with the clear aim of intimidating critical voices, is classified as a “manifestly unreasonable situation.” This opens the door for the judge to deviate from the basic amounts for legal costs and award a higher amount as compensation for the defendant's unnecessary legal costs.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important consequences for various parties in the legal landscape:

• For those starting a crowdfunding campaign: You may explain your legal battle online and name the opposing party, as long as you base your statements on facts and serve a clear public interest. Use terms such as “alleged” to protect yourself. Ensure that your criticism falls within the scope of the right to defense.
• For entrepreneurs and public figures: Be aware that legal action to stifle criticism (SLAPP) can backfire. Not only do you risk losing the case, but you may also be ordered to pay high legal costs if the court finds that you are attempting to financially exhaust the other party. The threshold for criticism is higher for you than for a private individual.
• For attorneys: Caution is advised when advising on defamation proceedings in the context of public debate. An aggressive strategy of “turning off the money tap” is increasingly being seen through and punished by the courts.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What exactly is a SLAPP?
A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a lawsuit that is not intended to seek justice, but to intimidate critics (such as journalists or action groups), drive them into debt, and silence them.

May I mention the name of my opponent on a fundraising site?
Yes, in principle, if the identity is relevant to the story and the information is factually correct (or based on public sources). If the other party is a public figure or there is a public interest at stake, more is permitted than in a purely private dispute.

Can I receive compensation if someone wrongfully sues me in order to silence me?
Yes, in two ways. First, you can claim damages if you can prove that the proceedings are “vexatious and reckless.” Secondly—and this happens more often, as in this case—the court may order the other party to pay increased legal costs. This is a lump sum compensation for your legal fees. The court may increase this amount if the situation is “manifestly unreasonable,” for example, when the lawsuit is clearly intended as intimidation.

Conclusion

Freedom of expression and the right to raise funds for legal defense are important rights. A critical, fact-based crowdfunding campaign cannot simply be banned in Belgium, even if the opposing party finds it painful. On the contrary, anyone who tries to stifle such campaigns through the courts risks getting a slap in the face in the form of a rejection and high costs.