How to Remove Google Reviews by Anonymous Reviewers

If you are looking at how to remove google reviews, but the reviewer is anonymous by hiding behind a fake account or avatar, then it can be extremely frustrating.

It is very likely that Google will not remove the negative review unless it breaches their terms and policies by including subject matter that is banned (hate speech, racism, etc).

But if your fake Google review is just a fake review that does not breach their terms then Google will likely not remove it.

However, because of the fake account and/or avatar, it is impossible to find out who the reviewer is without Google giving you their details – which of course they will not do.

However, there is a way to obtain the identity of the reviewer when looking at how to remove Google reviews.

In this article our litigation lawyers explain the process and look at the case law in relation to uncovering the identity of these anonymous keyboard warriors and how to remove Google reviews.

How to Remove Google Reviews

The first step in the process of learning how to remove Google reviews, is to contact Google and see if they will remove the Review.

A review will breach the terms of service if it contains content which is:

1. A conflict of interest
2. Derogatory
3. Illegal
4. An impersonation
5. Offensive
6. Off the topic
7. Restricted or forbidden
8. Sexually explicit
9. Spam and fake
10. Terrorism or terrorist

However, if the Google review does not contain this content, or you are unable to convince Google that it is fake, then it might be more difficult.

You could also try to flag the review from your console, and you can also contact them via their Twitter account – https://twitter.com/GoogleSmallBiz

However, if none of these methods are successful, then these genuine steps will help you in the future Court proceedings.

If it is not removed, then you will have to seek relief from the Court.

How to Remove Bad Reviews from Google

The first (and most important) step in the process is to find the identity of the reviewer.  If you do not know what they are then there is nothing that you can do.

In the case of Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126 the Federal Court gave leave for an originating application for pre-litigation disclosure to be served outside Australia to Google HQ.

This disclosure related to all the personally identifiable information of the reviewer, including:

1. the subscriber’s account information.
2. the name of the users of that account.
3. the IP address or addresses and associated information relating to that account.
4. any phone numbers associated with that account.
5. any location metadata associated with that account.
6. any other Google accounts including their full name and email address and identifying details which may have originated from the same IP address.

Once you have this information, then you can start negotiating with the reviewer to remove the review, or commence legal proceedings (most likely defamation proceedings) against the reviewer.

But what is the process of obtaining the court’s leave to serve an originating application in a foreign country?

Obtaining the Court’s Leave

There are several conditions that must be met pursuant to rule 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (“the FCR”).

Firstly, rule 10.43(1) says inter alia:

(1)  Service of an originating application on a person in a foreign country is effective for the purpose of a proceeding only if:

(a)  the Court has given leave under subrule (2) before the application is served…

For the purpose of obtaining the personal information of a Google user, the Court must give leave pursuant to subrule 2.

Therefore, subrule 10.43(2) says:

(2)  A party may apply to the Court for leave to serve an originating application on a person in a foreign country in accordance with a convention, the Hague Convention or the law of the foreign country.

For the purposes of removing a Google review, rule 10.41 defines the Hague Convention to mean the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“the Hague Convention”)

Here – https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=17

A lot of countries are signatories to the convention, including Australia and the United States of America, where Google is located.

Rule 10.43(3) of the FCR then goes on to say:

(3)  The application under subrule (2) must be accompanied by an affidavit stating:

(a)  the name of the foreign country where the person to be served is or is likely to be; and

(b)  the proposed method of service; and

(c)  that the proposed method of service is permitted by:

…

(ii)  if the Hague Convention applies–the Hague Convention.

So, the affidavit must state a country which is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and also that the method of service is permitted by the Hague Convention.

Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention states inter alia that:

Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with –

(a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad…

To summarize the above in relation to Google reviews, to be granted leave to serve an originating application outside Australia, the applicant must show that:

1. The United States of America is a Contracting State and a signatory to the Hague Convention; and
2. Service of the originating application is to be served in the United States of America; and
3. The originating application is to be served by “postal channels” and that this method of service is permitted by the Hague Convention.

The next step in the process is contained in subrule 10.43(4) which says:

(4)  For subrule (2), the party must satisfy the Court that:

(a)  the Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding; and

(b)  the proceeding is of a kind mentioned in rule 10.42; and

(c)  the party has a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed in the proceeding.

All three (3) of these conditions must be met.  This article will address those conditions below.

Court has Jurisdiction in the Proceeding

In relation to the jurisdictional issue, the Federal Court has jurisdiction to make an order for discovery to ascertain description of respondent, pursuant to rule 7.22 of the FCR.

Rule 7.22 of the FCR says:

(1)  A prospective applicant may apply to the Court for an order under subrule (2) if the prospective applicant satisfies the Court that:

(a)  there may be a right for the prospective applicant to obtain relief against a prospective respondent; and

(b)  the prospective applicant is unable to ascertain the description of the prospective respondent; and

(c)  another person (the other person ):

(i)  knows or is likely to know the prospective respondent’s description; or

(ii)  has, or is likely to have, or has had, or is likely to have had, control of a document that would help ascertain the prospective respondent’s description.

Therefore, subject to this rule the Court may order that Google give discovery to the applicant of all documents relating to the reviewer’s description.

So that box is ticked.

However, there was an express provision in rule 7.22 that the applicant make reasonable inquiries to ascertain the personal details of the reviewer.

Although not an express provision any longer in rule 7.22(1)(b), it is still worth doing because the applicant may have to provide a genuine steps statement with the application.

Proceeding is of a Kind Mentioned in Rule 10.42

Rule 10.42 of the FCR contains a number of commercial and civil causes of action.

As it relates to a fake defamatory review on Google, the following apply:

1. Proceeding based on a cause of action arising in Australia – Item 1 of the table.
2. Proceeding based on a tort committed in Australia – Item 4 of the table.
3. Proceeding based on, or seeking the recovery of damage suffered wholly or partly in Australia caused by a tortious act or omission (wherever occurring) – Item 5 of the table.

Therefore, this ticks the second box.

Party has a Prima Facie Case

The requirements for whether the applicant has a prima facie case is discussed in Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126 at [16], when discussing the authorities, Murphy J said:

A prospective applicant is not required to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie case of defamation against the prospective respondent; it is enough if the prospective applicant can show that he or she may have a right to obtain that relief. It is unnecessary, indeed undesirable, that I say much about the prospects of the defamation action which Dr Kabbabe proposes to bring. It suffices to note that because the review was on Google it was visible to the public in the Australian Capital Territory along with the rest of Australia, and it is likely this Court has jurisdiction. Dr Kabbabe may be able to show that publication of the review occurred in Australia as that is where it will have been viewed or downloaded by members of the public, and that it conveyed imputations which would have tended to lower his reputation as a dental surgeon in the opinion of right-thinking members of the community. The materials show a cause of action known to the law and a real prospect of the grant of some remedy.

So, the burden of proof to show a prima facie case is not onerous.

The applicant simply has to show that they may have a right to obtain that relief only.

As long as the Google review was published, and was able to be read in Australia, and it conveyed imputations which would have tended to lower the reputation of the applicant in the opinion of right-thinking members of the community – then this will likely be enough.

If you have received a fake review from a fake Google account, then contact our civil litigation lawyers for advice and assistance on how to remove Google reviews by anonymous reviewers

CONTACT OUR LAWYERS TODAY

OR CALL: 1300 545 133 FOR A FREE PHONE CONSULTATION

How to Get the Identifiable Information from Google

Following the above, an applicant will need to do the following to be given leave to serve an originating application for early discovery on Google – provide evidence to the Court that:

1. The United States of America is a Contracting State and a signatory to the Hague Convention; and
2. Service of the originating application is to be served in the United States of America; and
3. The originating application is to be served by “postal channels” and that this method of service is permitted by the Hague Convention.
4. The Federal Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding.
5. The proceeding is of a kind mentioned in rule 10.42.
6. The applicant has a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed in the proceeding.

Let’s have a look at what the cases have said.

What have the Cases Decided?

There have only been a few cases which seem to rely on this re. bad reviews on Google from anonymous reviewers.  They are:

1. Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126
2. Sydney Criminal Lawyers v Google LLC [2021] FCA 297
3. Seven Consulting Pty Ltd v Google LLC [2021] FCA 203
4. Allison v Google LLC [2021] FCA 186
5. Kukulka v Google LLC [2020] FCA 1229

We will give a very brief outline of these cases below.

How to Remove Google Reviews – Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126

In the case of Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126, the anonymous reviewer made a fake defamatory review against Dr Kabbabe, a dental surgeon.

The review was posted anonymously with the username “CBsm 23”.

The Court gave leave to serve the originating application to upon Google in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, by sending it by international registered post to:

Google LLC, C/O Custodian of Records, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043, United States of America

A copy of the order can he found here

As it turns out, Google must have provided the details of another Victorian dental surgeon, a Dr Ramy Georgy who is alleged to have posted the review.

Dr Kabbabe is suing in the Federal Court in Victoria in the matter of Matthew Roy Kabbabe v Ramy Georgy VID477/2020.  This is just an allegation at this point, and it looks as though Dr Georgy has filed a defence.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers v Google LLC [2021] FCA 297

In the Sydney Criminal Lawyers v Google LLC [2021] FCA 297 case it is alleged that five (5) anonymous reviewers made defamatory fake reviews against a law firm specialising in criminal law.

The evidence established that there was a prima facie case for the reviews being fake, and that arguably damage is likely to have resulted.

The Court gave leave to serve the originating application to upon Google in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, by sending it by international registered post to:

Google LLC, C/O Custodian of Records, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043, United States of America

A copy of the order can he found here

It will be interesting to follow this case to see what information Google provides.

Seven Consulting Pty Ltd v Google LLC [2021] FCA 203

In the Seven Consulting Pty Ltd v Google LLC [2021] FCA 203 case, it is alleged that a number of fake reviews were posted on the Google reviews for the business.

They claimed losses and damage in misleading and deceptive conduct, and loss of reputation for defamation.

The evidence established that there was a prima facie case for the reviews being fake, and that this arguably caused damages.

The evidence established that the reviews were published on Google, and that a number of steps were taken by the applicants to seek the removal the reviews.

The Court gave leave to serve the originating application to upon Google in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, by sending it by international registered post to:

Google LLC, C/O Custodian of Records, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043, United States of America

A copy of the order can he found here

How to Remove Google Reviews – Allison v Google LLC [2021] FCA 186

In the case of Allison v Google LLC [2021] FCA 186 it is alleged that a fake Google review was left at the cosmetic medical practice of Mr Scott Douglas Allison.

The preliminary discovery was sought for the identity of an unknown reviewers that go by the names of “Jack Stevens” and “Jason Turnball”.

The court was satisfied that the applicant had a prima facie case in defamation.

The Court gave leave to serve the originating application to upon Google in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, by sending it by international registered post to:

Google LLC, C/O Custodian of Records, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043, United States of America

A copy of the order can he found here

It looks as though Google provided an IP address because there is another case in the Federal Court in the matter of Scott Douglas Allison v Telstra Corporation Ltd QUD171/2021 in which the Federal Court has made an order that Telstra Corporation Ltd provide details of a number of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

This order can be found here

Kukulka v Google LLC [2020] FCA 1229

In the case of Kukulka v Google LLC [2020] FCA 1229, it is alleged that a fake defamatory Google review was left on the Google site for the applicant’s business.

The preliminary discovery was sought in relation to the identity of an unknown person under the name ‘Nick Wood’.

The court found that he may have a prima facie case in defamation and that he had made all reasonable enquiries to Google to ascertain the name of the mystery ‘Nick Wood’.

The applicant wanted to serve the document by email to the email internationalcivil@google.com which meant that Anastassiou J also had to make an order for substituted service under rule under r 10.24 of the FCR.

This substituted service order was made because the COVID19 pandemic was causing serious delays and impracticalities associated with international registered post.

The Court gave leave to serve the originating application to upon Google in the United States of America, by sending it by email to internationalcivil@google.com, conditional upon an acknowledgement of receipt being provided to the Prospective Applicant.

A copy of the order can be found here

You could also try to make an application for informal service.

How to Remove Google Reviews from an Anonymous Reviewer

This article explains the process of obtaining the information required from Google to identify the anonymous reviewer of a fake and defamatory Google review.

Following the above, an applicant will need to do the following to be given leave to serve an originating application for early discovery on Google:

Provide evidence to the Court that:

1. The United States of America is a Contracting State and a signatory to the Hague Convention; and
2. Service of the originating application is to be served in the United States of America; and
3. The originating application is to be served by “postal channels” and that this method of service is permitted by the Hague Convention.
4. The Federal Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding.
5. The proceeding is of a kind mentioned in rule 10.42.
6. The applicant has a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed in the proceeding.

This may also apply to other major international social media and review sites in the USA.

If you have a devastating fake review in Google, then contact our litigation solicitors for an obligation free chat about your eligibility requirements and the process of finding the anonymous reviewer.

If you have received a fake review from a fake Google account, then contact our litigation lawyers for advice and assistance on how to remove Google reviews by anonymous reviewers

CONTACT OUR LAWYERS TODAY

OR CALL: 1300 545 133 FOR A FREE PHONE CONSULTATION