A false Google review of your business: report, letter and claim

Truth of the publication is a defense only if the publication also involved a public interest (section 14). Section 15 protects a publication made in good faith in the circumstances it lists, including expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest (section 15(4)), and criticism of an act the injured party did in public (section 15(6)). So a review written in good faith about a service can be protected, even when it is harsh.

On the other hand, the Law creates a presumption that the publication was not made in good faith if what was published was not true and the author did not believe it was true; if it was not true and the author did not take reasonable steps before publishing to check whether it was true; or if the author intended to cause more harm than was reasonable to protect the values that section 15 protects (section 16(b)). A review written by someone who was not a customer, describing an experience that did not happen, is an example of a case where the first presumption may apply.

Before you report or send a letter, it is worth checking a few facts in the business records:

• Is there an order, an invoice or an appointment in a name that matches the name shown in the review?
• Does the date of the review, or the time of the visit it describes, match the days and hours the business was open?
• Is the product or service described in the review something the business actually sells?
• Does the review contain details that only a customer could know, or is the description general and could fit any business?
• Did the same user write similar reviews about other businesses, in the same style and on the same days?

Keep the answers yourself, together with the screenshots.

The platform has its own process for reporting reviews. It works according to its own policy and terms of use, not according to Israeli law, and the decision whether to remove a review is the platform's. You cannot know in advance whether or when a review will be removed. When you report, state exactly what is not true and why, and keep a record of the report.

The platform itself is not a “medium of communication” under the definition in section 11(c) of the Law, which refers to a newspaper and to radio and television broadcasts. So the legal demand is usually directed at the person who wrote the review.

When the author's identity is known (for example, a customer who can be identified from the review), you can send them a written demand: which sentences are not true and why, and a request to remove the review and publish a correction. Deleting the review does not cancel the cause of action, which arose as soon as it was published, but an apology, a correction or a retraction is a circumstance the court may take into account in the defendant's favor, when it was published in the place, to the extent and in the way that the defamation was published, and was not qualified (section 19(4)). So a good letter asks for a correction in the same place where the review was published.

The letter should be to the point and accurate: it may reach the court, and a threat or an exaggeration in it will not help. What the letter should and should not include: Warning letter before a defamation claim.

Publishing defamation is a civil wrong (section 7). The court may award compensation without proof of damage of up to NIS 84,038.36, and if it was proved that the publication was made with intent to harm, up to double that amount, NIS 168,076.72 (sections 7A(b) and 7A(c), as of the update of 16 October 2026). The amounts are updated on the 16th of each month according to the index (CPI) (section 7A(e)). This is a ceiling, not a fixed amount: the court awards according to the circumstances of the case, and compensation without proof of damage will not be awarded more than once for the same defamation (section 7A(d)). When actual damage is proved, such as the loss of customers, there is no ceiling.

In addition to compensation, the court may order that the publication not be distributed, and that a correction, a retraction or the judgment be published at the defendant's expense (section 9(a)). If the defendant admitted that some of the statements are defamatory or that some are not true, the court may order a correction to be published even before the judgment (section 10). And publishing defamation with intent to harm, to two or more people other than the injured party, is also a criminal offense (section 6): you can complain to the police, and the injured party may also file a private criminal complaint (kovlana) (section 8).

As a rule, no, in civil proceedings. In an application for leave to appeal, LCA 4447/07 Rami Mor v. Barak I.T.C. (2010), the Supreme Court held that without an arrangement in legislation, there is no power to order disclosure of an anonymous user's identity for the purpose of a civil claim. The practical routes are reporting to the platform, a complaint to the police when the publication amounts to an offense, and collecting identifying evidence from the review itself: details that only a customer could know, the date of the visit or the order, and a comparison with the business records.

• Replying publicly in anger. Your reply is a “publication” in itself (section 2), and a reply that attributes harmful facts that are not true to the author, or that contains a threat, may become evidence and even a cause of action against you.
• Waiting before documenting. Reviews are deleted and edited, so save a screenshot with the date and the link right away.
• Relying only on the report to Google. The report works according to the platform's policy and terms of use, not according to Israeli law, and the decision whether to remove the review is the platform's.
• A letter of demand with a threat or an exaggeration. The letter may reach the court, and a threat or an exaggeration in it will not help.