Are Fake Google Reviews a Crime? A Legal Analysis

This is the first question that comes to mind for any business owner facing an unjustified attack, and the answer is yes, although it requires an important legal clarification. Under our legal system, writing or purchasing fabricated reviews always constitutes an unlawful act. However, stating that fake Google reviews are a criminal offense means triggering the provisions of the Criminal Code, which only occurs when the seriousness of the conduct crosses certain legal thresholds.

It is important to distinguish between unlawful conduct and a criminal offense. Every fake review is punishable, but not all of them carry prison sentences. Most of these situations are resolved through administrative penalties or civil damages, reserving criminal prosecution for cases in which the attack seriously harms someone’s reputation or causes significant financial loss.

From Regulatory Violation to Criminal Proceedings

We often assume that receiving a false negative review is simply a violation of the platform’s terms of service, but the legal reality is far more serious. Depending on the author’s intent and the exact content of the text, we may be facing three different scenarios.

• Administrative violation: Following the amendment of the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users to align with European regulations, falsifying reviews or distorting the reality of a service is considered an unfair commercial practice. In this context, public authorities may intervene and impose substantial fines, primarily aimed at deterring companies that manage or purchase bulk review packages.
• Civil wrongdoing: This occurs when the comment causes measurable financial or reputational harm to the business. In this case, under the Unfair Competition Act, the objective is not to seek imprisonment for the author, but rather to obtain a retraction and financial compensation for the damages suffered.
• Criminal offense: This is the most serious scenario, where we confirm that fake reviews constitute a crime in the strict legal sense. It arises when the attack goes beyond commercial criticism and enters the realm of personal defamation or the false accusation of criminal conduct.

When a Review Crosses the Criminal Threshold

For a criminal complaint to succeed in court, the content of the review must clearly fall within the specific offenses defined by the Spanish Criminal Code. Simply lying about slow service is not enough; the conduct must be far more damaging to a person’s dignity or to the business itself.

Criminal courts generally intervene in the following situations.

Today, the digital trail makes it much easier to pursue this type of conduct, removing the false sense of anonymity. Our legal system protects freedom of speech, understood as the right to express subjective opinions, but it never protects deliberate falsehoods intended to defame.

The Key Legal Distinction: Criminal Offense, Civil Wrongdoing, and Unfair Competition

When a business suffers a reputational attack, the immediate reaction is often to go straight to the police, assuming that fake Google reviews automatically constitute a crime. It is a human and understandable response, but choosing the wrong legal avenue is the main reason many complaints are ultimately dismissed. Seeking to have the offender fined by the State or sentenced to prison is not the same as pursuing financial compensation for the damage suffered or stopping an aggressive commercial strategy by a competitor.

Understanding the legal nature of the violation makes the difference between success and failure, and it also directly affects the cost of the proceedings and the final outcome. In Spain, the legal system provides three distinct paths to address this issue, and each one requires a different evidentiary approach.

Three Legal Paths for the Same Injustice

The defense strategy must align with the real objective of the affected business owner. A thorough preliminary analysis helps avoid initiating a lengthy and complex criminal proceeding when a civil action might provide a faster and more financially effective solution for the company.

• Criminal route: This is the most forceful option and is reserved for situations of extreme seriousness, such as defamation through false accusations or serious public insults. The goal here is to punish the author and create a criminal record. To succeed, it is necessary to prove beyond doubt that the fake reviews constitute a crime, demonstrating intent or a specific purpose to cause harm. The burden of proof is demanding because criminal law is governed by the principle of minimal intervention.
• Civil route: This is often the most practical option for the majority of businesses. It is based on the protection of the right to reputation. Unlike the criminal path, the objective is not imprisonment, but rather a court ruling declaring unlawful interference, ordering the removal of the information from Google, and requiring the responsible party to pay financial compensation. What matters here is not merely the severity of the insult, but the actual reputational damage and measurable financial harm caused.
• Unfair competition: This is the specific path for disputes between businesses or when the review is intended to divert customers. It applies whether a competitor spreads false statements to discredit another company or a business purchases positive reviews to mislead the market. The focus is on the distortion of fair competition and bad faith, allowing for swift actions to cease the conduct and require correction.

The Decisive Factor in Choosing the Strategy

Choosing one route over another often depends on whether the author is known. In criminal proceedings, judges may request connection data from Google if there are signs of criminal conduct. In civil actions, identifying the aggressor before filing a lawsuit is more technical and requires preliminary steps. Even if we know that fake Google reviews can constitute a crime, courtroom experience shows that success sometimes comes sooner by proving harm to reputation or unfair commercial practices than by attempting to establish strict criminal liability.

Specific Criminal Offenses Under the Spanish Criminal Code Committed Through Fake Reviews

For a criminal complaint to move forward and for a judge to open formal proceedings, the reported conduct must fit precisely within the provisions defined by law. The Spanish Criminal Code does not punish falsehood in the abstract, but rather the real harm that such falsehood causes to legally protected interests such as reputation, freedom, or the proper functioning of the market. It is at this point that we can confirm fake Google reviews may constitute a crime, provided they meet the required level of seriousness and technical legal elements.

The most common criminal categories in these disputes are generally grouped into two main blocks: those that attack personal reputation and those that affect the business owner’s assets or freedom to operate.

Crimes against reputation: the attack on the individual

These are the primary offenses when dealing with destructive negative reviews. The law establishes clear protection for personal dignity and public reputation against expressions aimed at gratuitous humiliation and that go beyond legitimate criticism.

• Defamation through insult under Article 208: This offense arises when a comment includes statements that damage another person’s dignity or harm their reputation. Saying that a service was slow is lawful; using insults, degrading language, or offensive expressions may constitute a criminal offense. The key legal element is the intent to offend. When committed in writing and disseminated through the global reach of the internet, it may be considered aggravated due to its public nature, increasing the potential penalty.
• False accusation under Article 205: This represents a more serious level of misconduct. It consists of falsely accusing someone of committing a crime while knowing the accusation is untrue. For example, if a user claims in a review that an auto repair shop commits billing fraud or that a bar sells alcohol to minors. In such cases, fake reviews may constitute a criminal offense because they attribute criminal conduct to an innocent person.

Socioeconomic Crimes and Offenses Against Freedom

Beyond attacks on personal reputation, there are other criminal behaviors that misuse Google’s review system to extort or unfairly manipulate competition.

• Coercion: This offense has become increasingly common, particularly in the hospitality industry. It occurs when a customer threatens to post a false negative review unless they receive a free item, a discount, or a refund. In these cases, the core of the crime is not the opinion itself, but the use of intimidation to override the business owner’s will and force them to act against their wishes.
• Offenses against the market and consumers: Article 282 of the Spanish Criminal Code punishes false claims about products or services that may cause serious and evident harm. Although it is often associated with misleading advertising by companies themselves, it also covers organized smear campaigns designed to distort consumer behavior or financially damage a competitor through the массовое spread of false statements.

Spanish courts have drawn a clear line in this area. Freedom of speech protects subjective opinion, but it does not protect insults or the false accusation of criminal conduct. When a comment crosses those boundaries, it ceases to be the expression of a dissatisfied customer and becomes punishable behavior.

The Real Consequences for the Author: Fines, Damages, and Prison Sentences

Accepting that fake Google reviews can constitute a crime means understanding that the person who writes them may face far more serious consequences than simply having the content removed. The sense of security that anonymity seems to provide often disappears abruptly when a court summons arrives. At that moment, legal risk stops being theoretical and becomes a real threat to personal freedom and financial stability.

The severity of the sanction will always depend on how a judge classifies the conduct, but the impact typically affects three critical areas at the same time: liberty, finances, and the individual’s legal record.

Risk of imprisonment and a criminal record

Although first time offenders do not usually serve effective prison time, custodial sentences are предусмотрены in the Spanish Criminal Code. The sentence varies depending on the seriousness of the statements and their level of dissemination.

• Prison sentences: In the most serious cases of public false accusation, meaning falsely attributing crimes through the internet, the author may face prison terms ranging from six months to two years. In cases involving serious insults, the punishment is often converted into a financial penalty, but the criminal conviction remains on record.
• Criminal fines: This is the most common sanction in criminal proceedings. The Spanish system operates on a daily fine structure. The judge sets a daily amount based on the offender’s financial capacity and multiplies it by the number of days imposed in the sentence. Failure to pay can result in substitute personal liability, converting the unpaid fine into days of imprisonment.
• Criminal record: Any conviction, even if it only involves a fine, generates a criminal record. This can affect access to public employment, complicate visa applications for international travel, or create difficulties when renewing residency permits.

Financial impact: damages and legal costs

Beyond the fine paid to the State, what truly concerns those who discover too late that fake Google reviews can amount to a crime is civil liability. The offender must financially compensate the victim for the harm caused, and the total amount can increase significantly if the business proves substantial losses.

• Damages and compensation: This includes both moral damages, understood as reputational harm and emotional distress, and lost profits, meaning the revenue the business failed to earn as a direct result of the review. Courts take into account the massive visibility of platforms such as Google Maps when determining the amount.
• Legal costs: This is often overlooked but may exceed the amount of the fine itself. If a conviction is issued, the judge will generally order the offender to cover the attorney and court representation fees of the opposing party, which can amount to thousands of dollars.
• Publication of the judgment: Many rulings require the convicted individual to publish the court’s decision in the same medium where the false statement was posted, at their own expense, as a way to publicly restore the affected business’s reputation.

The Reverse Risk: Is It a Crime to Buy Fake Positive Reviews for My Business?

So far, the focus has been on the victim of a reputational attack. However, there is an equally risky and widespread practice: purchasing five star review packages to climb local SEO rankings. Many business owners see this as just another marketing strategy, perhaps aggressive, but fail to realize that the legal framework in Spain has changed dramatically. While concern often arises when asking whether fake Google reviews are a crime when received, the law is equally strict when the business itself fabricates them to distort reality.

The reform of the General Law for the Protection of Consumers and Users, which entered into force in May 2022 and is commonly known as the Omnibus Directive implementation, reshaped the legal landscape. What may once have seemed like a gray area is now a clearly defined violation, with financial penalties capable of threatening the stability of any small or medium sized company.

The Administrative Route: Significant Fines for Misleading Consumers

The most immediate risk for businesses that purchase these services is usually not imprisonment, but enforcement action by consumer protection authorities at the national and regional levels. The law now classifies the publication of reviews without verifying that they come from real customers who have actually used the service as a misleading unfair commercial practice. The consequences are direct and measurable.

• Substantial financial penalties: Fines are calculated based on the company’s financial capacity and the degree of intent. They may reach up to one million euros or between four and six times the unlawful profit obtained. The purpose is to penalize the artificial manipulation of consumer behavior.
• Temporary closure of the business: In cases of very serious violations or repeated offenses, the competent authority may order the temporary closure of the establishment or the suspension of business activity for up to five years.
• Irreversible reputational damage: Administrative sanctions are often made public. If customers discover that a company’s online reputation has been artificially inflated, trust can collapse much faster than it would because of any genuine negative review.

When the Purchase of Reviews Becomes the Crime of Fraud

Although the administrative route is the most common enforcement mechanism, there is a specific scenario in which we can confirm that fake reviews constitute a criminal offense for the buyer: fraud. This occurs when fabricated ratings are not merely decorative, but part of a broader scheme designed to obtain unlawful financial gain.

If a business uses fake reviews as the central lure to sell a product that is nonexistent, defective, or substantially different from what was advertised, causing the victim to pay for something they would never have purchased had they known the truth, the conduct may fall under Article 248 of the Spanish Criminal Code. In this context, the reviews function as the sufficient deception required to establish the offense of fraud.

Google’s Uncompromising Enforcement

Beyond the courts, there is an immediate form of private enforcement carried out by the platform itself. Google’s algorithms have become increasingly sophisticated in detecting patterns associated with purchased reviews, identifying repeated IP addresses, accounts with no prior activity, or unusual spikes in rating activity. The technological penalty can be swift and severe for the business.

• Mass removal of reviews: Google does not limit itself to deleting fake reviews. It often removes legitimate reviews as well if they are flagged as suspicious, leaving the profile nearly empty.
• Suspension of the Business Profile: The listing may be temporarily or permanently suspended, disappearing from Google Maps and search results, which in practical terms results in digital invisibility for the company.

Legal Roadmap: Steps to Report and Remove Fake Reviews with the Law on Your Side

When your company’s reputation is under attack, composure becomes essential. The instinctive reaction to respond aggressively or file a complaint without a clear plan often leads to dismissal of the case and frustration for the business owner. To succeed in court and restore the company’s image, it is crucial to follow a rigorous protocol that preserves the validity of the evidence and respects judicial timelines.

The legal path is not immediate but reporting and removing Google reviews can be highly effective when executed with technical precision. Below are the key steps to transform indignation into a solid legal strategy.

1. Securing the evidence through a notarial record

The natural first impulse is to take a screenshot, but this type of image carries very little evidentiary weight in court because it can easily be manipulated with basic editing tools. Before reporting the review to the platform, which may cause it to disappear temporarily, it is vital to visit a notary.

A notarial record of online presence or navigation should be prepared. The notary will access the review from their own device and certify the content, the URL, the date, and the user profile. This document becomes the foundation of the entire process, transforming volatile digital content into legally reliable evidence. Without this certification, proving later that the fake Google reviews constituted a crime or that they existed and caused damage becomes significantly more difficult.

2. Formal notice demanding correction

If the author’s identity is known, whether it is an identified customer or a former collaborator, the next logical step is to send a formal written notice with certified content and proof of delivery. Ideally drafted by an attorney, this communication demands that the responsible party remove the comment and issue a retraction within a short timeframe, while warning of pending legal action.

This step demonstrates procedural good faith and is often highly effective. Frequently, once the offender realizes that the matter is being taken seriously and understands that fake reviews may constitute a criminal offense or actionable civil wrongdoing, they choose to remove the content rather than face costly litigation.

3. Identifying the Anonymous Author Through Preliminary Proceedings

The main obstacle arises when the profile uses a pseudonym or lacks identifying information. In this scenario, civil procedural strategy provides a specific tool known as preliminary proceedings. Since it is not possible to file a lawsuit against an unidentified individual, your attorney may petition the court to order Google Ireland Limited to disclose the relevant connection data.

If the court finds sufficient indications of unlawful conduct, the technology platform may be required to provide information such as the IP address, recovery email, or phone number associated with the account. This step makes it possible to break anonymity and identify the individual who will become the defendant in the future claim.

4. Filing the Lawsuit or Criminal Complaint

Once the evidence has been secured before a notary and the author has been identified, it is time to proceed before the courts. The choice of legal action depends on the seriousness of the conduct.

• Civil action: A claim for protection of the right to reputation is filed, often preceded by a formal conciliation attempt. This is generally the most recommended path to obtain financial compensation and a court order requiring removal of the content, without seeking imprisonment.
• Criminal action: A criminal complaint may be filed for insult or false accusation, requiring both an attorney and court representation. This route seeks a conviction of the offender as well as financial compensation, but it requires proving specific intent to cause harm in order to establish that, in that particular case, the fake Google reviews constitute a criminal offense.

Conclusion

Obtaining a court ruling confirming that fake Google reviews constitute a criminal offense marks a turning point in the defense of any business. However, the day to day reality of running a company demands solutions that cannot wait for the pace of the judicial system. While a case moves forward, the brand’s reputation remains exposed in the digital storefront and the financial impact does not pause. For this reason, an intelligent defense of corporate assets cannot rely on a single approach. It requires a strategy that combines legal strength with technical reputation management.

At 202 Digital Reputation, an online reputation agency, we approach these conflicts with the understanding that winning the lawsuit is only part of the journey. The true objective is to restore market trust and repair the digital footprint. With more than thirteen years of experience managing reputational crises, we have learned that the most effective results come from integrating disciplines that traditionally operate separately.

A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Your Most Valuable Asset

Effective content removal and damage repair require action on multiple fronts at the same time. It is not enough to know that fake Google reviews may constitute a crime. The impact must be quantified and precise technical measures must be implemented to reverse it.

• Legal and forensic support: Our legal team not only designs the defense strategy, but also conducts forensic analysis of reputational harm to calculate the exact financial damage. This step is essential to successfully support claims based on unfair competition or unlawful interference with reputation.
• Technical management and negotiation: In many cases, a deep understanding of the policies of platforms such as Google, Glassdoor, or Trustpilot allows for faster content removal than the criminal route, always applying strictly lawful and secure methods.
• Preventive protection: Once the crisis has been resolved, safeguarding the brand becomes critical. Continuous monitoring and the development of proprietary digital assets act as a firewall against future attacks, ensuring that your company’s narrative is shaped by its achievements rather than by the bad faith of third parties.

Protecting corporate identity today is as important as securing a company’s physical facilities. In the face of doubt or attack, the response must always be professional, measured, and effective.