Managing fake reviews is one of the most complex challenges for the hospitality industry.
The Court of Bolzano marks a fundamental turning point in the protection of hotels against manipulated online reputations. In a recent order signed by Judge Ivan Rauzi, the court confirmed Booking.com 's obligation to immediately remove a clearly false review left for the Stern Mountain Chalet in Vipiteno, also imposing a fine for each day of delay.
An exemplary case that demonstrates how hospitality managers can effectively defend themselves from retaliation and trumped-up lawsuits.
The history of the controversy
Topics index
The story begins in December 2025 and unfolds through a precise sequence of events:
On December 4, 2025, a Hungarian customer booked a chalet at the Stern Mountain Chalet for the period December 6-8, for 842 euros. The next day, the customer requested a free last-minute cancellation due to a "change of plans."
The property applies its own policies and rejects the request, so on January 3, 2026, a 1 out of 10 review appears on Booking.com (with ratings of 2,5 out of 10 for staff, cleanliness, location, and comfort).
The chalet requests that the feedback be deleted, but the portal refuses, citing the contractual clause regarding the 48-hour deadline for reporting a no-show.
The facility appealed to the Bolzano Court, first obtaining an order on March 12th and then confirming it in early June.
The Judge's Decision: Why the Review Is False and Retaliatory
In the order, Judge Ivan Rauzi described the assessment as "manifestly false ." It was established that the user had never stayed at the chalet or physically visited it; therefore, he could never have assessed services he had not used.
The Court's ruling: The review simulated an experience that never occurred and was published with a likely retaliatory intent following the failure to reimburse, with the clear intent of causing financial and reputational damage to the accommodation facility.
Penalties and costs for the platform
The court order imposes very specific obligations and financial penalties on Booking.com:
| Cost Item / Obligation | Detail and Amount |
| Action required | Immediate removal of the defamatory review |
| Penalty for delay | € 50 per day for each day of missed cancellation |
| Legal fees paid | 3.228 € |
| Previews and accessories | 313 € more legal burdens |
What does this ruling teach hoteliers?
This legal precedent demolishes the idea that OTA decisions are irrefutable, offering hoteliers concrete leverage to defend themselves.
First, it demonstrates that the well-known 48-hour contractual clause—imposed by Booking for reporting no-shows—is by no means absolute and does not preclude legal protection in the event of a civil or defamatory offense.
At the same time, the ruling highlights how booking platforms can no longer hide behind their own internal bureaucracy when evidence of the material falsity of a judgment is provided.
To ensure the best possible brand protection, it is therefore crucial to meticulously collect all documentary evidence, such as email exchanges, no-show logs, and conversation tracking, which are crucial for asserting your rights, even in preliminary proceedings.
Reviews, therefore, must reflect a real experience. If the user doesn't show up (a no-show), the rating is invalid and its publication constitutes unfair damages.
If there is clear evidence of the user's non-residence, it is possible to proceed formally through legal channels by filing an urgent appeal with the competent court to obtain a judicial removal order.
To learn more about the legal protections and European regulations regarding the transparency of web ratings, you can consult the official guidelines of the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) on unfair commercial practices and misleading reviews.
[Subscribe now to the newsletter of Direzione Hotel] Stay up-to-date on hospitality industry trends, tax news, grants, and incentives for your property!
