A fake review, a post alleging fraud, an organized negative review campaign commissioned by a competitor—each of these phenomena is commonplace in the Polish market today, and each can lead to measurable, legally compensable damages. Civil law offers companies real protection, although the mechanism for pursuing it can be less straightforward than it might seem.
Legal entities—limited liability companies, joint-stock companies, cooperatives, foundations, and even municipalities—enjoy the protection of personal rights under Article 43 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court has long confirmed that the provisions on the protection of personal rights of natural persons apply to legal entities accordingly, extending protection in particular to reputation and good name, understood as the entity's established reputation in terms of reliability and professionalism. A breach of reputation occurs when the perpetrator's actions objectively—as measured by the average consumer—may undermine trust in the company as a reliable market participant. Therefore, it is sufficient that the action poses even a real risk of losing that trust.
The case law of common courts from 2022 to 2025 illustrates a wide range of activities that have been deemed to damage reputation in the digital environment: publishing false allegations of unreliable service provision on review platforms, systematically disseminating false information to contractors combined with a media campaign attacking the brand, making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption or collusion, as well as journalistic suggestions formulated using question marks and unconfirmed reports, creating a false image of the entity. Accusations directed against the president or a member of the management board acting in the interest of a legal entity may simultaneously violate the personal rights of the company itself—provided, however, that a real impact on its reputation is demonstrated, as clearly emphasized by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 28 January 2025, reference number II CSKP 2398/22, indicating that damage to reputation does not automatically occur simply by the fact of controversial actions against a company body.
The same judgment provides important guidance regarding the liability of online content publishers: a publisher or editorial office that relies on the principles of journalistic diligence cannot publish statements of fact obtained from third parties without verifying them. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of journalistic duties and may result in liability for damage to the company's reputation, regardless of the liability of the original author. In practice, online publishers are liable under the same principles as traditional press—as long as they themselves perform an editorial role and not merely passively host other people's content.
The procedural mechanism is beneficial to the injured company. The unlawfulness of the infringement is presumed, and the burden of rebutting it rests with the perpetrator. In this type of proceeding, the plaintiff must demonstrate only the mere fact of infringement of the protected right and its objective nature. The defendant, however, wishing to be released from liability, must prove the truth of the allegations or another circumstance excluding unlawfulness—acting within the legal order, defending a legitimate interest, or obtaining the consent of the injured party. The line between legal criticism and unlawful infringement runs through the reliability test: criticism based on true or carefully verified facts, expressing a subjective assessment without unfounded allegations, remains within the sphere of permitted freedom of expression. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of November 25, 2022, file reference II CSKP 246/22. However, disseminating claims about facts whose truthfulness the perpetrator has not demonstrated—especially if the action is accompanied by ill will and the aim to discredit the entity—is considered an infringement.
In the event of a violation, the injured company has a wide range of protection measures at its disposal. On a non-financial level, it may demand that the violation be discontinued, its effects removed, and a statement published in a place and form appropriate to the scale of the incident—which in practice means publishing an apology on the same platform where the violation occurred. In cases of multiple or widespread violations, the statement may be general in content, briefly describing the essence of the tort. On a financial level, the company is entitled to compensation for specifically proven financial damage—loss of business, costs of a remedial campaign, or a decline in revenues that is a normal consequence of the violation. A groundbreaking resolution of the Supreme Court of October 3, 2023, file reference III CZP 22/23, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a legal entity is entitled to monetary compensation directly in its favor under Article Article 448 § 1 of the Civil Code—harm to a legal person should be understood as non-pecuniary damage consisting in the hindering or preventing of the conduct of business in the scope in which it was conducted before the violation, regardless of whether this resulted in financial loss. This resolution closed a long-standing dispute and opened the possibility for companies to pursue the same remedy that has long been available to natural persons.
Identifying the perpetrator of online infringements remains a significant challenge—critical to the effectiveness of any claims. In its resolution of August 6, 2020, file reference III CZP 78/19, the Supreme Court confirmed the court's authority to demand user identification data (IP address, account details) from telecommunications operators when necessary to protect personal rights. However, this data is typically retained for approximately twelve months, meaning that a delay in taking legal action may permanently prevent the identification of the perpetrator and, therefore, the enforcement of any protection. Effective protection of a company's reputation therefore requires specific action: promptly securing evidence, identifying the perpetrator, and precisely distinguishing factual allegations, which can be countered by a demand to demonstrate their veracity, from subjective assessments, which prove to be less compelling.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of April 29, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
