How to legally respond to fake Google reviews

Lessons fromRafiei Commercial Pty Ltd v Dokt [2025] FCA 764

In the age of digital commerce, online reviews can make or break a business. For small and medium enterprises, particularly those operating in competitive industries, a single malicious Google review can deter customers and cause irreparable reputational and financial harm. What legal recourse do business owners have when faced with fake or defamatory reviews online?

The Federal Court of Australia addressed this question in Rafiei Commercial Pty Ltd v Dokt [2025] FCA 764. In a judgment handed down by Justice Dowling, the Court granted interlocutory relief in favour of a car dealership that had been subjected to a two-year online smear campaign. The ruling is an informative decision in online reputation management and provides a roadmap for businesses when dealing with misleading or deceptive online content.

Summary of Key Points

• Businesses affected by fake Google reviews may seek relief under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.
• In Rafiei v Dokt, the Federal Court found that online posts designed to damage a competitor's reputation, if arising from a commercial dispute, can satisfy the "in trade or commerce" threshold.
• The Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from publishing further defamatory material online and ordered the removal of existing posts

Case Overview

The applicants, Rafiei Commercial Pty Ltd and its sole director, Mr Gholamreza Rafiei, operate a used car dealership in Melbourne. Starting in 2022, they became the target of a coordinated online attack led by Mr Joshua Dokt, a former business associate. Using various pseudonyms and Google accounts, Mr Dokt posted over 1,000 images and statements alleging that the dealership sold defective, salvaged, or fraudulent vehicles. These posts appeared primarily on Google Reviews and X (formerly Twitter), often under usernames like "Fraudsterr Reza Rafiei" and "J D."

The applicants claimed that none of the posted images depicted vehicles sold by them. They also alleged that Mr Dokt never purchased a vehicle from their dealership, making his claims demonstrably false. The online campaign resulted in significant reputational damage and a dramatic decline in business revenue.

After unsuccessful efforts to have the content removed by Google, the applicants requested an injunction from the Federal Court to prevent further losses until the final ruling on whether the conduct was misleading and deceptive.

Legal Grounds for Relief

The primary cause of action was based on section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in trade or commerce. The applicants also pleaded the tort of deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation) but were unsuccessful in establishing a prima facie case on that ground.

Justice Dowling applied the four-step test from Self Care IP Holdings Pty Ltd v Allergan Australia Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 8 to determine whether the conduct contravened s 18 of the ACL:

1. Identify the conduct: The Court categorised the offending content into four groups, including photos of damaged vehicles and posts stating the dealership sold defective cars.
2. Determine whether the conduct occurred in trade or commerce: The Court accepted that although Mr Dokt was not in business at the time of posting, the content arose out of a commercial dispute and was designed to damage the applicants' business. That was sufficient.
3. Evaluate the meaning conveyed: The posts would lead a reasonable consumer to believe the applicants sold damaged or faulty vehicles.
4. Assess whether the conduct was misleading: Given the volume, context, and apparent falsity of the claims, the Court held that the conduct was likely to mislead consumers.

The Court ruled that the applicants had established a prima facie case for a breach of s 18.

In ‘trade or commerce’

The applicants contended that conduct qualifies as in 'trade or commerce' only if linked to a commercial dispute or aimed at discouraging business engagement, excluding political, social, or industrial motives.

The Court disagreed, instead narrowing the definition by requiring a connection to a commercial dispute. It was careful not to broaden the term's scope beyond this. The debt dispute between the parties made the online statements relevant to trade or commerce.

Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm

The applicants provided compelling evidence of financial harm, including a sales decline from $3.48 million to $1.62 million over a comparable six-month period. They also showed a drop in foot traffic and customer engagement, directly linked to the false reviews.

Justice Dowling held that damages would not be an adequate remedy, especially given the difficulty in recovering compensation from Mr Dokt, who was facing bankruptcy proceedings. The Court noted that if the conduct continued, the applicants' business might not recover.

By contrast, the respondent's argument that his posts were an exercise in free speech was given little weight. The Judge found the posts to be largely unsupported by evidence and, in many cases, demonstrably false or malicious.

Accordingly, the injunction was granted by the Court.

Practical Implications for Businesses

This case offers several practical takeaways for business owners dealing with fake Google reviews:

1. Document Everything: The applicants' success was largely due to meticulous documentation, including screenshots of the posts, affidavits, and sales data before and after the campaign.
2. Establish Commercial Motivation: To rely on s 18 of the ACL, businesses must show that the offending conduct occurred in the course of or was connected to trade or commerce. If the content stems from a commercial dispute (e.g. unpaid invoices, past dealings), this threshold can be met.
3. Act Quickly: Delay can work against applicants in injunction proceedings. The Court acknowledged that although the posts began in 2022, the more damaging material appeared in early 2025. Acting promptly once real harm becomes apparent is critical.
4. Legal Remedies Exist Beyond Defamation: Although defamation law is an obvious tool against false online statements, section 18 of the ACL offers a powerful alternative, especially where the false conduct has a commercial impact.
5. Prepare for Pushback: The respondent appeared in person, denied the Court's jurisdiction, and attempted to shift blame. Nonetheless, the Court focused on the objective effect of the posts on reasonable consumers and not the respondent's personal narrative.
6. Use Clear and Specific Orders: The Court modified the applicants' original draft orders to clearly describe the prohibited conduct and referenced specific annexures in the supporting affidavits. This provides clarity and enforceability.

The Role of Digital Platforms

Although the applicants sought to have Google remove the content, this case underscores the limitations of relying solely on platform-based moderation tools. Despite repeated complaints, the defamatory material persisted or reappeared under new pseudonyms. Businesses must consider judicial intervention where platform enforcement fails.

Conclusion: Turning the Tide on Fake Reviews

Rafiei v Dokt confirms that Australian courts are prepared to step in and protect businesses from online reputational attacks, particularly where the conduct is deliberate, repeated, and harmful. By grounding the relief in the ACL rather than defamation law, the Court opened an effective and pragmatic legal avenue for urgent relief.

For business owners grappling with malicious Google reviews, this case offers an alternative legal strategy. Document the harm, establish the commercial context, and act swiftly. The law is increasingly responsive to the modern challenges of digital defamation, and this decision is a blueprint for action.

Need Help with Fake Google Reviews?

If your business is being harmed by false or misleading online reviews, consult a legal professional with experience in consumer law and online reputational disputes. In many cases, fast and targeted legal action can prevent further harm and set the record straight.