How do I know whether my position is legally strong enough?

That depends on exactly what has been published and how. In cases of reputational harm caused by an unlawful publication, the court looks at the factual basis for it, the seriousness of the allegation, the reach and whether the right of reply was applied. Is it a question of factual assertions that are incorrect, or of an opinion that is hurtful but factually supported? Not sure? A short conversation already provides a good deal of clarity.

How do I prove that I have suffered reputational harm?

By documenting the consequences as concretely as possible: contracts terminated, turnover lost, commissions missed, screenshots of the post and the responses to it, witness statements from business contacts. For material loss it comes down to financial records that show the link between the publication and your loss. For non-material loss the court looks at the nature and seriousness of the damage to your honour and reputation.

What if I feel the harm but find it hard to show how much?

That is a common problem, and it makes quite a difference which type of loss you are claiming. Non-material loss - the damage to your honour and reputation - is assessed by the court on the basis of fairness under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. You do not have to prove exact amounts there. Material loss is different. The court wants to see that the causal link between the publication and your financial loss is plausible. In concrete terms that means: which fall in turnover is visible after the date of publication, which commissions demonstrably fell through, which contracts were terminated? Where that link is missing, the court will dismiss the claim, even if you have in fact suffered loss. In a 2024 case (District Court of Central Netherlands) that is precisely what happened: the claim for material loss failed because the fall in turnover could not clearly be traced back to the unlawful publication. Other factors, in that case the coronavirus crisis, had already affected turnover earlier. So start documenting early: save everything that demonstrates the link between the publication and your loss.

Can I tackle reputational harm without going to court?

Often you can. A cease-and-desist letter or a removal request to the platform is enough in many cases. Where defamation and slander are involved, a criminal complaint can also apply pressure. Only where out-of-court routes do not work are interim injunction proceedings the next step. Litigation is the last resort, not the first.

How quickly can a reputational harm lawyer act?

A cease-and-desist letter can go out within a day. Interim injunction proceedings usually take one to three weeks, depending on the court. In acute situations - think of a publication that went online that same day - we act immediately.

What does a reputational harm lawyer cost?

That differs from case to case. A cease-and-desist letter is a limited investment. Interim injunction proceedings ask more, but the costs are often out of all proportion to the harm you prevent or have compensated. We discuss what you can expect in advance.

Can I also obtain damages for reputational harm?

Yes. Material damages cover demonstrable financial loss, from a fall in turnover to the costs of repairing your reputation. Non-material compensation is intended for the damage to your honour and reputation and is assessed by the court on the basis of fairness under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. The amount is determined by the Smartengeldgids (the Dutch guide to awards for non-material loss) and all the circumstances of the case.

What are damages for reputational harm and how much are they?

Damages for reputational harm consist of two components. Material loss covers demonstrable financial loss: a fall in turnover, commissions missed, the costs of repairing your reputation such as PR services or communications to clients. Non-material loss is the compensation for the damage to your honour and reputation, assessed on the basis of fairness under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. The latter is harder to quantify. The court looks at the seriousness of the allegation, the reach of the publication and how well known the person concerned is. In a 2024 case the District Court of Central Netherlands awarded €1,500 for a YouTube report that had been online for one day. Well-documented loss, with financial records and demonstrable consequences, makes the difference between a symbolic amount and serious compensation.

What is the difference between reputational harm and defamation or calumny?

Reputational harm is the consequence; defamation and slander can be the cause. Smaad, criminal defamation, is the intentional damaging of someone’s honour by charging them with a particular fact. Laster is criminal defamation made in the knowledge that the allegation is untrue. Both can be tackled under criminal law and under civil law. You claim damages for reputational harm by way of the civil route, on the basis of tort.

Practice areas
> Unlawful publication
> Reputational harm

Reputational harm caused by a publication: what can you do?

One article that is not accurate. Sometimes that is all it takes. Within a day everyone is googling your name and finding only that one story. Clients cancel. A financier who was still enthusiastic last week lets you know through his secretary. Whether it is a social media post going viral or a run of false reviews, you are the one left with the reputational harm.

A reputational harm lawyer assesses, on the basis of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, whether an unlawful publication or statement is causing reputational harm, and then acts: from a cease-and-desist letter and rectification through to claiming material and non-material damages in court.

Are you faced with reputational harm caused by a publication or statement? Call 020 675 88 21 or get in contact with Merel Teunissen for a brief initial assessment of your options.

Not every negative publication is unlawful

That is the question you ask before you phone a lawyer. Is my position legally strong enough? A sharp review that is factually accurate is permitted. Even where it costs you clients. You only have a case once the publication itself is shaky. Accusations without a factual basis, for instance. More often it is the right of reply that turns out to be the weak spot, because the journalist did not call at all, or gave you one evening to respond to a file he had been working on for three months.

The court weighs two fundamental rights against each other. On one side freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR), on the other your right to protection of honour and reputation (Article 8 ECHR). Neither wins in advance. What tips the balance is how serious the accusation is and whether it is factually accurate. Beyond that, how well known you are counts, because a public figure has to tolerate more than an ordinary business owner, as does whether the publication serves a public interest.

What people underestimate is the speed. Commissions that dry up within a week for a self-employed worker. A director who ends up in a conversation with his supervisory board because they have read the piece too. And it stays there. Anyone who googles your name comes across that one article first, months later still.

What does a reputational harm lawyer actually do?

Assessing your legal position

Are we dealing with a statement of fact or with an opinion? That distinction determines almost everything. An opinion is allowed to be sharp, a fact has to be accurate. Beyond that we look at the reach and at whether a public interest is in play. After that first conversation you know where you stand, including where the answer is that you are better off doing nothing for the moment.

Forcing removal or rectification

Where the publication is unlawful, it usually starts with a cease-and-desist letter. Often that is enough. If the other party does not respond, interim injunction proceedings offer a way forward. The court can order removal and a rectification, backed by a penalty payment if the other party still fails to comply.

Sometimes I advise against claiming a rectification. A rectification puts the story back in the spotlight, and where a publication has barely been picked up, quiet removal can be worth more. We make that judgement together beforehand.

Claiming damages

Reputational harm often has a financial side. Lost commissions, lost turnover, lost profit. That is material loss you can recover from the party who caused it. Alongside that there is non-material compensation for the damage to your honour and reputation, on the basis of Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code.

The court determines that non-material compensation on the basis of what is equitable, and in practice the amounts come out lower than people expect. The Smartengeldgids, the standard Dutch reference work listing awards of non-material damages, gives an indication of what has been awarded in comparable cases. What pushes your compensation up is the seriousness of the accusation, the reach of the publication and above all whether the publisher knew it was inaccurate. So document everything you have. Terminated contracts, turnover figures, e-mails from clients pulling out.

Intervening in advance where a publication is imminent

Do you know that a piece is coming? Then you do not have to wait. In interim injunction proceedings we can claim an injunction to stop publication, although that is a far-reaching claim and the courts are reluctant to grant it. More often the better route is that we guide you through the right of reply, so that your response stands up legally and the sharpest passages are dropped before publication.

Would you like to know what is legally possible in your situation? Get in contact for an initial conversation.

Reputational harm for businesses

Businesses are hit at least as hard, but the harm looks different. A former employee posting anonymous reviews. A competitor “sharing information” with a trade journal. Or a piece of journalism that is accurate in itself but leaves out the context that would turn the story around. What follows is usually silence. Clients who no longer call back, a financier who withdraws his commitment. For listed companies a share price reaction comes on top of that.

We regularly act for businesses faced with unlawful coverage. Legally this too turns on the unlawful act (Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code). The difference with private individuals lies in the evidence. A business can make material loss more concrete, because turnover figures fall measurably and terminations are there in black and white.

From practice: the YouTube report that was online for a day

A shop owner in Nijmegen. A YouTube programme with almost a million subscribers. A report whose title said his shop was “apparently known” for selling stolen laptops. Online for one day, but the damage was already done: threats, racist comments under the video, negative reactions from family and friends, and an employer who did not renew his contract.

What had gone wrong? A member of the programme’s staff had phoned a third party and, in doing so, posed as someone else, presenting a fictitious case. That third party responded on the basis of that false picture and said that stolen devices had been sold through the shop on a number of occasions. That is how the statement ended up in the report as a fact.

The shop owner’s lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter the same day. The report went offline the next day, and 48 hours later a version was up without the offending passages.

The shop owner nevertheless pressed on with proceedings. The District Court of Midden-Nederland gave judgment in July 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:4146).

The report was unlawful, the court held. Saying that the shop is “known for” selling stolen goods suggests a pattern, and with it that the owner knew about it. Support in the facts was absent, because the only source had been contaminated by the journalist’s own method. A journalist who obtains information by posing as someone else must, according to the court, be alive to the fact that his interlocutor has a false picture. That is not what may be expected of a good journalist.

The non-material damages came out at €1,500. Modest, and there was a reason for that. The unlawful version was online for only one day and the broadcaster rectified quickly. The court refused the material damages. Not because there were none, but because the causal link had not been made out firmly enough. The coronavirus crisis had already affected turnover, and the figures showed no clear decline after the date of publication.

What does this case teach us? Speed works both ways. The prompt cease-and-desist letter limited the harm, but for that very reason it also depressed the award. And a rectification does not settle the matter, because the unlawful act does not disappear with it. Then there is the most painful point, the substantiation of your material loss. You make that stick with figures. If you want lost turnover compensated, you have to be able to show per commission, contract or client that the loss is traceable to that publication. Keep everything from day one.

Unsure whether your position is strong enough? Call 020 675 88 21 for a brief initial assessment. We will help you work out what is realistically achievable.

Practice area

Frequently asked questions about reputational harm

That depends on exactly what has been published and how. In cases of reputational harm caused by an unlawful publication, the court looks at the factual basis for it, the seriousness of the allegation, the reach and whether the right of reply was applied. Is it a question of factual assertions that are incorrect, or of an opinion that is hurtful but factually supported? Not sure? A short conversation already provides a good deal of clarity.
By documenting the consequences as concretely as possible: contracts terminated, turnover lost, commissions missed, screenshots of the post and the responses to it, witness statements from business contacts. For material loss it comes down to financial records that show the link between the publication and your loss. For non-material loss the court looks at the nature and seriousness of the damage to your honour and reputation.
That is a common problem, and it makes quite a difference which type of loss you are claiming. Non-material loss - the damage to your honour and reputation - is assessed by the court on the basis of fairness under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. You do not have to prove exact amounts there. Material loss is different. The court wants to see that the causal link between the publication and your financial loss is plausible. In concrete terms that means: which fall in turnover is visible after the date of publication, which commissions demonstrably fell through, which contracts were terminated? Where that link is missing, the court will dismiss the claim, even if you have in fact suffered loss. In a 2024 case (District Court of Central Netherlands) that is precisely what happened: the claim for material loss failed because the fall in turnover could not clearly be traced back to the unlawful publication. Other factors, in that case the coronavirus crisis, had already affected turnover earlier. So start documenting early: save everything that demonstrates the link between the publication and your loss.
Yes. Material damages cover demonstrable financial loss, from a fall in turnover to the costs of repairing your reputation. Non-material compensation is intended for the damage to your honour and reputation and is assessed by the court on the basis of fairness under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. The amount is determined by the Smartengeldgids (the Dutch guide to awards for non-material loss) and all the circumstances of the case.
Damages for reputational harm consist of two components. Material loss covers demonstrable financial loss: a fall in turnover, commissions missed, the costs of repairing your reputation such as PR services or communications to clients. Non-material loss is the compensation for the damage to your honour and reputation, assessed on the basis of fairness under Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. The latter is harder to quantify. The court looks at the seriousness of the allegation, the reach of the publication and how well known the person concerned is. In a 2024 case the District Court of Central Netherlands awarded €1,500 for a YouTube report that had been online for one day. Well-documented loss, with financial records and demonstrable consequences, makes the difference between a symbolic amount and serious compensation.
Reputational harm is the consequence; defamation and slander can be the cause. Smaad, criminal defamation, is the intentional damaging of someone’s honour by charging them with a particular fact. Laster is criminal defamation made in the knowledge that the allegation is untrue. Both can be tackled under criminal law and under civil law. You claim damages for reputational harm by way of the civil route, on the basis of tort.

Merel Teunissen

Lawyer

Merel advises and litigates in the fields of media law, film law, copyright, privacy law, contract law and intellectual property law. She acts for established and emerging media personalities, producers in film, television and podcasts, victims of unlawful publications and creative entrepreneurs.