May your company collect testimony about a competitor through social media?

Companies are increasingly faced with negative posts or calls for testimonials on social media by competitors or interest groups. May an association simply launch an online call to gather experiences about your company suggesting irregularities? The answer in many cases is no: without specific legal investigative authority, such public insinuation may be considered unauthorized defamation and an unfair market practice, against which you can take effective action.

The facts

In a recent case before the president of the enterprise court of Hainaut, Mons division, two groups of nurses opposed each other. A non-profit organization representing the interests of independent nurses had posted an appeal on Facebook. This message asked for experiences with a specific competing company. It explicitly stated that the testimonies (both positive and negative) would serve to analyze the situation and possibly submit a dossier to the Federal Public Service.

The targeted company subsequently filed a cease-and-desist order to have the asbl and the manager involved cease this derogatory behavior.

The decision

The judge ruled on Dec. 19, 2025, that the Facebook publication actually constituted an act of defamation and therefore a violation of fair market practices. Within business-to-business relations, the Code of Economic Law (CEL) forbids in Article VI.104 any act that is contrary to fair market practices and by which a firm (may) harm the professional interests of another firm.

The court banned the non-profit organization from publishing any more derogatory messages about the opposing party on social media, under penalty of a fine of 500 euros per day. In addition, the non-profit organization was required to publish a court-created rectifying notice on the same networks.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This decision aptly illustrates the tension between freedom of speech (enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - ECHR) and the protection of companies' professional reputations.

Although the non-profit organization argued that its message was purely a neutral information gathering exercise, the court ruled otherwise. The explicit reference to willingness to file with government agencies created the clear perception that the targeted company was engaging in irregular practices. This qualifies as the indirect expression of an opinion that damages a company's reputation.

An important element in the assessment was the legal capacity of the non-profit organization. As an ordinary interest group, it does not have the powers of a disciplinary body or a public prosecutor's office to detect and investigate violations ex officio. By publicly appearing to have incriminating facts, while actually still looking for evidence, one exceeds the limits of what is permissible. The infringement of freedom of expression was therefore considered by the court in this context as a necessary and proportionate measure to ensure a fair market environment.

What this specifically means

This decision has implications for the digital communications of both businesses and interest groups:

• For interest groups and competitors: Moderate your public communications. You should not assume the role of an investigative agency on social media. A public call for testimony, combined with threats of official complaints, can quickly earn you a conviction for defamation.
• For targeted companies: You are not powerless against online profiling searches. Even if a publication does not contain rock-hard, direct allegations, the latent suggestion of irregularities is enough to successfully bring a cease-and-desist action (including penalties and a rectification).

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Can there be defamation if we are not in direct competition with the company in question?
Yes. The law does not require that the author of the defamation be a direct competitor of the victim. Associations that make statements that damage a company's reputation may also be guilty of this offense.

Can the judge impose a publication ban even if we have already removed the post in question by now?
Absolutely. The fact that the challenged publication has already been removed does not prevent the court from still imposing a formal injunction order. Indeed, such an order retains its utility for the future, especially to avoid repetition.

May a judge prohibit me from criticizing the court's own ruling online after the fact?
No, freedom of speech includes the right to criticize judicial decisions, as long as it is done in a moderate manner that respects the authority of the judgment. A demand by the opposing party to ban any reference to the proceedings on social media is usually disproportionate and will be rejected.

Conclusion

Publicly discrediting a company through seemingly neutral calls for testimony carries significant legal risks. Companies have an absolute right in Belgium to shield their reputation from insinuations that distort fair market practices. Targeted intervention through the court provides robust and rapid protection against this.