Joris DeeneAn online complaint platform can be a useful tool for consumers, but it can also be a source of great frustration for businesses. A ruling by the president of the Brussels French-speaking enterprise court on 29 January 2025, sheds bright light on the limits of such platforms. While hosting a complaint platform is permissible per se, the president ruled that a scoring system that inevitably leads to a negative rating is a form of unlawful defamation and must be discontinued.
The facts: a bailiff versus a consumer organization
The case revolved around a dispute between Intermédiance, an association of bailiffs, and Test-Achats, the well-known consumer organization. Test-Achats had created an online complaints platform on its website where consumers could file complaints against specific companies. Such a page was automatically created for Intermédiance after several complaints were received.
On this page, visitors were shown not only the complaints, but also a "complaint management score." Intermédiance received a score of 54 out of 100, resulting in the qualitative rating of "moderate."
Intermédiance went to court and demanded a prohibitory injunction of this practice. It argued that the platform was an illegal practice that bypassed the official disciplinary bodies for judicial officers and seriously damaged its reputation.
The decision
The President of the enterprise court made a clear distinction between the admissibility of the complaint platform itself and the legality of the scoring system.
1. The complaint platform itself is not illegal
The president ruled that the creation of a complaints platform by a consumer organization falls perfectly within its social purpose. Test-Achats does not claim disciplinary powers and does not replace official control bodies. The argument that the complainants (debtors) were not "consumers" in the contractual sense of the word was rejected. The president argued that the term "consumer" in this context should be interpreted broadly as "any citizen." Even the fact that a platform structurally collects only negative complaints does not in itself make it illegal.
2. The scoring system is indeed illegal: an act of defamation
However, the court was much more critical of the scoring system. Scoring was calculated based on three criteria:
- Consumer feedback (satisfaction): 50% of points
- Response grade: 35% of the points
- Average response time: 15% of points
The president followed Intermédiance's reasoning that debtors, against whom enforcement is pending, will by definition never be "satisfied" with the judicial officer. This made it impossible for Intermédiance to achieve the 50% of points linked to plaintiff satisfaction.
Even if Intermédiance responded perfectly and immediately to every complaint, its score could never exceed 50 points (35 + 15). According to Test-Achats' own scale, a score of 50 points places a company in the "mediocre" category. The president concluded that the system was set up so that a poor rating was inevitable.
This, the president argued is an act of unlawful defamation that unjustifiably damages the company's reputation, regardless of whether the complaints themselves were justified. The publication of such a score was therefore considered an unlawful market practice.
Test-Achats was ordered to remove any mention of the score and associated qualitative assessment, under penalty of a penalty payment of 1,000 euros per day of delay..
Legal analysis and interpretation
This ruling is an important application of the rules around fair market practices, as set forth in Article VI.104 et seq. of the Code of Economic Law (CEL). Central to this is the concept of defamation, a specific form of an act contrary to fair market practices.
The president refers to established case law that states that defamation is an act that damages the reputation of a competitor or its products/services. What is crucial here is that the truth of the claims is not always relevant. The way information is presented and its objectivity are decisive.
In this case, the problem was not that complaints were published, but that the methodology of the scoring system was fundamentally flawed and unfair. It created an appearance of objectivity, when in reality it guaranteed a negative outcome. The company had no real possibility, even with the best efforts, of achieving a neutral or positive score. It is this systemic bias that made the practice illegal.
What this specifically means
- For businesses: This ruling provides an important weapon against unfair online scoring systems. If you find that your company is being evaluated based on a methodology that systematically disadvantages you and over which you have no control, you may want to consider legal action. This is not about silencing criticism, but challenging an evaluation process that is inherently unfair. Document the method of calculating the score and analyze whether you have a real chance of influencing it positively.
- For platform operators and consumer organizations: Be extremely careful when implementing scoring systems. Make sure the criteria are objective, relevant and complete. A system must give the company a fair chance to improve its score through demonstrable good performance. A model that structurally collects only negative input and then attaches a quantitative, negatively colored score to it is legally vulnerable.
FAQ (frequently asked questions)
Is every online complaint platform with reviews now illegal?
No, absolutely not. The court clearly confirmed that hosting a platform where opinions and complaints can be expressed is, in principle, permissible. The condemnation specifically concerned the unfair and inevitably negative scoring system which was linked to the platform.
My company gets only negative comments on a complaint platform, can I have that website taken offline?
Probably not. Collecting exclusively negative feedback, such as on a complaint platform, has not in itself been found illegal. The legal boundary is crossed when those complaints are translated into a score or rating that gives the impression of being an objective evaluation, when the method of calculation makes that impossible.
What is the difference between an ordinary bad review and defamation?
A bad review is a subjective opinion of an individual. Defamation is a legal concept in which one company's reputation is harmed unnecessarily or unfairly by another company. In this case, the disparagement was not the individual complaint, but the "official" score created by the platform operator that was inevitably negative due to a flawed system.
Conclusion
This ruling draws a clear line in the sand: the freedom to inform and collect complaints stops where unfair and damaging reputation management begins. A scoring system must provide a fair and objective picture of a company's performance. A model that condemns a company to a permanent "mediocre" score, regardless of its efforts, is illegitimate.
Dutch 
English