The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation told how to confirm the existence of damage to the business reputation of a legal entity and receive compensation. Criminal legal protection of business reputation of a legal entity Damage to business reputation article

We protect the company's business reputation

The company may face a situation where it will have to defend its business reputation in court. The very concept of “business reputation” has many complex scientific definitions. In general, we can say that this is the “good name” of the company. Let's consider ways to protect the good name of a company, as well as judicial practice on this issue.

Untrue and defamatory information

Information disseminated about a legal entity may either be untrue or discredit its good name.

Lev Lyalin,
honorary lawyer, member of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Bar Association

Untrue information is statements about facts or events that did not take place in reality at the time to which the information relates. At the same time, from a legal point of view, information contained in court decisions, sentences, decisions of preliminary investigation bodies and other procedural or official documents is not considered untrue. For their appeal and challenge, a different legally established procedure is provided. For example, in the appellate and cassation courts of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts.

Defamatory, in particular, are false or unreliable information containing allegations about the company violating the current legislation, committing a dishonest act, displaying dishonesty in conducting production and economic activities, violating business ethics or business customs that detract from the business reputation of the company.

The dissemination of information that is untrue and discredits business reputation should be understood as its publication in the press, broadcast on radio and television, demonstration in newsreels and other media (hereinafter referred to as the media), as well as posting on the Internet, mention in public speeches and statements , addressed officials, communication in one form or another (including oral) to at least one person. At the same time, it does not constitute dissemination of defamatory information if, when communicating to the person concerned, sufficient confidentiality measures were taken so that nothing became known to third parties.

Protection rules

Protection disputes business reputation legal entities related to their economic activities are subject to the jurisdiction of arbitration courts. The company's claims regarding the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation of its employees are beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitration court.

The company’s business reputation is subject to protection according to the rules on the protection of a citizen’s business reputation, with the exception of provisions on compensation for moral damage. In practice, this means that the company cannot go to court for compensation for moral damage. She is only entitled to compensation for damages.

<...>9. As a result, the responsibility to prove the accuracy of the disseminated information lies with the defendant. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as the defamatory nature of this information.<...>

Methods of protection

The company has the right to challenge the dissemination of any information that does not correspond to reality, and not just that which discredits its business reputation. According to the law, in order to limit the spread of false information, it is not necessary to prove that it adversely affected the reputation.

• refutation of false information;
• publishing your response in the same media;
• replacement or revocation of a document containing untrue information;
• removal of unreliable information that discredits a good name, as well as suppression or prohibition of further dissemination of false information by seizing and destroying, without any compensation, copies of material media containing the specified information made for the purpose of introducing into civil circulation;
• deleting relevant information, as well as refuting false information in a manner that ensures that the refutation is communicated to Internet users;
• compensation for losses.

In addition, if it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated false information, the company has the right to apply to the court under the rules of special proceedings with a statement to recognize the disseminated information as untrue.

When preparing a claim for the protection of business reputation, you must be guided by:

• – Civil Code;
• Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 2124-1 "" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Mass Media), in particular Articles 2, 43-46, 57;

If untrue or defamatory information was published in the media or on the Internet on information resource registered as a media outlet, it is necessary to use the legislative norms related to this field of activity. When preparing claims, it is very important to check them for compliance with the list of cases in which the media are exempt from liability for the dissemination of false information. These are cases when such information:

I note that when a company files a claim, it must be prepared for the opposing party’s request to conduct a forensic linguistic examination in order to determine whether the controversial expressions in the context of the article are value judgments of the author and whether they are defamatory. It is advisable to have a corresponding expert opinion already at the time of filing claims in court. If it is not challenged by the opposing side, there is a good chance that the judges will consider it admissible evidence and refer to it in their decision.

If the dispute is won, a refutation of the information must be published in the same media that disseminated it. This applies to refutations both published on the basis of a judicial act and published voluntarily based on a corresponding request from an interested person.

Refusal to rebuttal may be appealed to the court within a year from the date of dissemination of information. If the management (editorial) of a media outlet refuses to voluntarily publish a company’s response, the refusal to publish it (as well as the refusal to rebuttal) can be challenged in court.

The “victim” party often asks the question: what is better, demanding a refutation or the right to reply? There is no universal recipe. I believe that a right of reply may be preferable (see sample drafting below). The fact is that, when refuting certain information, the court often takes it out of context and as a result, in the refutation published by the defendant, it is not always possible to understand what is being discussed, and the accompanying comments of the judicial act often nullify the refutation. The answer prepared by the “victim” of the attacks is, as a rule, more meaningful and logical in refuting the arguments of the opposite side.

Business reputation commercial organization- this is the prevailing opinion about her in society. A positive company image is a prerequisite for successful entrepreneurship.

Civil law refers to business reputation legal entity to intangible benefits and guarantees judicial protection in case of harm. The purpose of the defense is to restore a good name and compensate for property losses resulting from damage to reputation.

What is damage to business reputation?

Damage to the business image of an organization consists in the formation of a negative opinion among others about its activities, the creation of a negative image.

The consequences of this can be expressed in the loss of consumer interest among customers in the company's products, loss of trust of partners, loss of new counterparties and, as a result, a decrease in profits.

From a legal perspective, damage to a company’s reputation can be caused by the dissemination of defamatory information that does not correspond to reality. To obtain judicial protection, all three circumstances together are necessary. Let's look at them in detail.

Information about the organization must be expressed in the form of defamatory statements.

Defamatory character may include accusations of illegal activities, bribery of executives, reports of debts, bankruptcy, infringement of customer rights and other similar statements. As a rule, the discrediting connotation of information is clear, for example, when reporting in an article about arrears of wages. But in complex cases, to establish depravity, a forensic linguistic examination will be needed to determine whether the published fact spoils the reputation.

In this case, negative information should be disseminated in the form of statements - firm statements about something.

For example, a message in an article on the website of an online publication about the violation by the rector of one of the universities in St. Petersburg of the constitutional right of students to freedom of speech, at the request of the university, the court recognized as defamatory and ordered the authors to remove this material from the resource (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 18, 2016 N 307 -ES16-8923).

Conversely, statements containing an assessment, speculation or personal opinion are not statements and are therefore not considered to be harmful to the commercial image. Judicial practice in cases of business reputation has developed a criterion by which statements and opinions are distinguished: the first can be verified for compliance with reality, the second cannot. Thus, unfortunately for many entrepreneurs, the author of a private point of view cannot be held accountable, even if his statement influences public opinion due to its authority. For example, criticism of the quality of food in a restaurant expressed by a popular blogger on his Internet channel will not be considered defamatory information.

Let us note that situations where negative statements were made about the activities of the organization as a whole, as well as about its management, employees, business owners, and even about the trademark are subject to equal judicial protection.

The information published must not correspond to reality.

That is, in general, the information must be false. In this case, the author of the message must prove the veracity of the published circumstances.

At the same time, if it is proven in court that the facts and events did take place in reality, the company will not receive protection, even if they really could have affected the reputation.

For example, an organization filed a lawsuit against the newspaper’s editors to recognize the fact described in the article about the company’s large debts for electricity as information discrediting its business reputation. The editors won the court, documenting the existence of a two-million-dollar debt of the company to the electricity supplier (Resolution of the North-Western District Administration of November 30, 2016 N F07-8523/2016).

Information that degrades the business image must be disseminated.

The established judicial practice in cases of protection of reputation determines that the dissemination of information is its communication to at least one (!) person.

In reality, defamatory messages that cause controversy are most often published in newspapers, on websites and Internet forums, expressed on radio, television and live performances, and also written in official letters.

Modern courts do not consider the dissemination of a statement in government bodies– the prosecutor’s office, the police, the president – ​​even if in reality the unfavorable circumstances described did not exist.

Thus, the court rejected the company’s claim for the protection of business reputation brought against the organization that wrote a complaint to the prosecutor’s office about the plaintiff’s violation of commercial activities sanitary standards when using land plots. The refusal was justified by the fact that the defendant organization applied to the prosecutor's office exercising its right to appeal to government agencies, which does not constitute dissemination of information (Resolution of the Administrative District of the North-Western District of December 23, 2015 in case No. A56-87641/2014).

Ways to protect business reputation

The main way to restore a company’s good name, according to the law, is the author’s obligation to refute the disseminated information. At the same time, the culprit must refute it in the same way as he expressed it - in the same media, in a letter, on the Internet.

In addition to the refutation, the affected company has the right to publish a response to the false accusation in the same source.

If criticism of the company was contained in an official document, e.g. business letter, such a document is subject to revocation.

In order to prevent further dissemination of negative information and provided that a refutation cannot be published widely, the company has the right to demand the removal of information from public access in the media and the Internet. As a last resort, it is even possible to destroy material media: copies of newspapers, magazines, leaflets.

In cases where the author of the slander could not be identified (especially relevant for information on the Internet), the law gives the injured organization the right to demand in court that the defamatory information be declared untrue.

The most sought-after right of a legal entity with a discredited reputation is the ability to demand compensation for losses, but only along with a refutation.

We emphasize that damages can be recovered from the author of information - actual or predicted financial losses, and not moral damage, which involves mental suffering exclusively for a person, but not for an organization. In practice, a company can sue a slanderer for monetary losses, but to do this it is necessary to prove a direct connection between their occurrence and the dissemination of critical information.

Where to go to protect the organization’s business reputation?

Disputes regarding the protection of commercial image are considered by the judiciary. A statement of claim for the protection of business reputation must be sent to the arbitration court. To prepare documents and represent you in the proceedings, it is better to hire an arbitration lawyer.

The statute of limitations for filing a refutation and recovery of reputational damage is not established by law. Exceptions include claims against the media - they can be brought to justice within a year from the date of publication of the negative message.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation Article 152. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation

(see text in previous edition)

1. A citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it is true. The refutation must be made in the same way in which information about the citizen was disseminated, or in another similar way.

At the request of interested parties, it is possible to protect the honor, dignity and business reputation of a citizen even after his death.

2. Information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen and disseminated in the media must be refuted in the same media. A citizen in respect of whom the specified information has been disseminated in the media has the right to demand, along with a refutation, that his response also be published in the same media.

3. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen is contained in a document emanating from an organization, such a document is subject to replacement or revocation.

4. In cases where information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen has become widely known and, in connection with this, a refutation cannot be brought to public knowledge, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as the suppression or prohibition of further dissemination of this information by seizure and destruction, without any compensation, of copies of material media containing the specified information made for the purpose of introducing into civil circulation, if without destroying such copies of material media, deleting the relevant information is impossible.

5. If information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen turns out to be available on the Internet after its distribution, the citizen has the right to demand the removal of the relevant information, as well as a refutation of this information in a way that ensures that the refutation is communicated to Internet users.

6. The procedure for refuting information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen in cases other than those specified in paragraphs 2 of this article is established by the court.

7. The application of penalties to the violator for failure to comply with a court decision does not relieve him of the obligation to perform the action prescribed by the court decision.

8. If it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, the citizen in respect of whom such information was disseminated has the right to apply to the court to declare the disseminated information untrue.

9. A citizen in respect of whom information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation has been disseminated, along with a refutation of such information or the publication of his response, has the right to demand compensation for losses and compensation for moral damage caused by the dissemination of such information.

10. The rules of paragraphs 1 of this article, with the exception of the provisions on compensation for moral damage, can also be applied by the court to cases of dissemination of any untrue information about a citizen, if such a citizen proves that the specified information does not correspond to reality. The limitation period for claims made in connection with the dissemination of said information in the media is one year from the date of publication of such information in the relevant media.

11. The rules of this article on the protection of a citizen’s business reputation, with the exception of provisions on compensation for moral damage, respectively apply to the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity.

Organizations, unlike individuals, cannot claim compensation for moral damages when disseminating information that discredits their business reputation (). However, this does not exclude the possibility of claiming compensation for damage caused by such actions. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained in what cases legal entities can expect to receive compensation for derogation of their business reputation (approved by the Presidium of the RF Supreme Court on February 16, 2017).

On the website of the publication, whose founder is "M", on April 17, 2014, an article was published containing information that the University administration was violating the guarantee of freedom of speech to citizens.

Since this publication disseminated untrue information, the University’s business reputation was damaged, which it estimated at 1 million rubles. However, Society "M" refused to compensate him.

Therefore, the University filed a lawsuit and asked to recognize the information published on the website as untrue and discrediting its business reputation, to oblige the company to remove the article from the website and post a refutation on the main page, and also to recover 1 million rubles from “M”. as compensation for damage. The plaintiff confirmed the fact that the said article was posted on the website with a protocol for examining evidence dated May 5, 2015, drawn up by a notary.

To compile statement of claim for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, please use "Constructor of legal documents " Internet version of the GARANT system. Get free access for 3 days!

The court of first instance partially satisfied the stated demands - it agreed that the article discredits the business reputation of the University, and ordered the defendant to remove it by posting the text of the refutation on the main page in the public domain. But the court did not seek compensation for damages (decision of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region dated November 11, 2015 in case No. A56-58502/2015). He explained his position, referring to , by the fact that the damage caused to a legal entity is of a property nature, which excludes the possibility of awarding non-property damage to a legal entity, no matter in what form it may be expressed. However, the court recognized that the plaintiff would be entitled to compensation for damages if he confirmed that the dissemination of information led to property losses in the specified amount.

The university did not agree with this and appealed the decision in an appeal, which canceled the act of the lower court and recovered 1 million rubles in favor of the plaintiff. compensation for harm (). A legal entity whose right to business reputation has been violated, in the opinion of the court, has the right to demand compensation for non-material damage if it is proven general conditions tort liability (the presence of a wrongful act on the part of the defendant, the adverse consequences of these actions for the plaintiff and the cause-and-effect relationship between this). The court also noted that company "M":

• disseminated information that was untrue and discredited the business reputation of the University;
• posted this information on the Internet, as a result of which an unspecified and unlimited number of users received free access to it.

Thus, information discrediting the plaintiff received an unlimited degree of dissemination. And, therefore, the declared amount of compensation for damage is quite justified.

Company "M" did not agree with the obligation to pay compensation to the plaintiff and filed a complaint with the cassation, which overturned the appeal decision, leaving the decision of the trial court in force ().

The university, the court explained, when considering the case did not provide evidence that after the publication of the controversial article, consumer demand for the services provided to them decreased or other negative consequences occurred for it.

The final point in this dispute was put by the RF Armed Forces ().

The court noted that despite the fact that it excludes the possibility of compensation for moral damage to a legal entity in the event of derogation of its business reputation, this does not prevent it from filing claims for compensation for damage caused to reputation ().

At the same time, damage caused to business reputation should be understood as any derogation of it, which manifests itself, for example, in the presence of losses to a legal entity due to the dissemination of defamatory information and other adverse consequences in the form of loss of competitiveness, inability to plan activities, etc.

However, the mere fact that the defendant disseminated information discrediting the plaintiff’s business reputation is not enough to conclude that damage has been caused to the business reputation and to pay monetary compensation, the RF Supreme Court added. The plaintiff must confirm:

• having an established reputation in a particular area business relations(industry, business, services, education, etc.);
• the occurrence of adverse consequences for him as a result of the dissemination of defamatory information;
• the fact of loss or decrease in confidence in his reputation.

The university, in turn, referred to the provision by society "M" of free access to information discrediting the plaintiff to an unspecified and unlimited number of users. But he provided neither evidence indicating his reputation formed before the publication of the contested article on the website, nor evidence allowing him to establish the existence of adverse consequences for him as a result of such publication.

The absence of such evidence, the Court explained, firstly, makes it difficult to conclude that a court decision to refute discreditable information is not enough to restore the balance of rights of participants in disputable legal relations. And secondly, it does not allow us to determine the amount of fair compensation.

Taking this into account, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the refusal of the cassation to recover compensation from the defendant for the dissemination of information discrediting the business reputation of the university as justified and left the plaintiff’s complaint unsatisfied.

The concept of business reputation is one of the most complex in legal practice. To assert rights and receive compensation, it is necessary professional lawyer and proper evidence base.

Business reputation of a legal entity

Positive business reputation is part market value of the company and is its intangible asset. Ideas about a legal entity are formed on the basis of information about its activities. The assessment is given by those who enter into economic relations with the company: counterparties, clients, consumers and partners.

The dissemination of untrue defamatory information about the company causes damage, namely leads to deterioration public opinion and other negative consequences. All of them together cause material damage.

Judicial protection of business reputation of legal entities

Within judicial practice compensation for damage caused by the dissemination of false information discrediting business reputation is carried out by analogy with compensation for moral damage to an individual. Compensation takes on material expression and thus restores the plaintiff’s discredited business reputation and imposes civil liability on the defendant.

Proof and assessment of damage to business reputation

The amount of compensation for damage depends on the evidence provided. Information is recognized as discrediting the business reputation of a legal entity in the following cases:
- have a defamatory character;
— were distributed through the media and became known to third parties;
- transferred to the public by a certain subject, i.e. the defendant;
- are not true.

The absence of evidence on at least one of the points leads to the fact that the claim in civil law cannot be satisfied.

As stated above, damage and protection of the business reputation of legal entities are closely related to public opinion, which acts as a source of information about changes in the perception of the enterprise. In a significant number of cases, in order to prove the harm caused, and, moreover, to correctly assess its size, it is necessary to conduct a study of business partners or consumers. Sociological examination allows us to say how significantly in their eyes the business reputation of an economic entity has suffered or could have suffered.

Our clients are generally not interested in disseminating information about their referrals to us in cases of assessing damage to business reputation, therefore, as part of our code of ethics, we do not provide links to litigation materials on this topic. We suggest you first use to evaluate how we can help you in a particular case. Based on the results of the pilot study, it will be easier for you to decide whether to go to court.

One of the most striking examples of protecting business reputation is a dispute over a lawsuit. You can get acquainted with the rest of the practice of using sociological research as evidence in courts in cases of other categories