What is the Method to Remove Reviews for Beauty Clinics? Explaining Provisional Disposition for Deletion

Patients considering the use of beauty clinics and cosmetic surgery clinics tend to research online reviews before visiting.

Generally, the difficulty of consulting with friends or acquaintances about cosmetic surgery is thought to be one motivation for gathering information on the internet.

Furthermore, in the case of beauty clinics, the results of the treatment and the effects that can be achieved are highly valued.

Therefore, there may be a desire to choose a beauty clinic with as many positive reviews as possible.

Consequently, from the perspective of the beauty clinic, online reviews are extremely important. This is because if a defamatory review is posted, there is a possibility that the number of patients visiting the clinic could significantly decrease.

Therefore, we will explain how to remove reviews for beauty clinics that have received defamation.

For defamation on the beauty clinic review site “Japanese Beauty Medical Review Square”, we explain in detail in the following article.

https://monolith.law/reputation/reviews-deletion-of-cosmetic-medicine-forum[ja]

For the deletion of Google Maps (My Business) reviews, we explain in detail below.

https://monolith.law/reputation/google-map-reputation-delete-way[ja]

Case of Recognized Defamation Against a Beauty Clinic

We will discuss a case involving a review posted on a large internet bulletin board about a beauty clinic.

Case Overview

Medical Corporation X, which operates a beauty clinic, claimed that a review posted by patient Y on the large bulletin board 2channel, which defamed the clinic, damaged its reputation. Therefore, they demanded compensation of 3,834,600 yen for emotional distress.

The review allegedly written by patient Y can be broadly divided into two types.

Review 1: Review Regarding the Disclosure of Treatment History

The first one is a review stating that the patient’s cosmetic surgery history was loudly discussed in the clinic in front of other patients. We will refer to this as “Review 1”.

The content of the review regarding this point was specifically as follows:

• The history of the treatment was loudly discussed in front of many people
• For some reason, I was even badmouthed because it was my clinic
• The history of the treatment was loudly discussed twice in front of many people at the reception desk

Review 2: Review Regarding Assault Over the Waiting Room Wall

The other one is a review stating that patient Y was hit and kicked over the wall of the waiting room by the clinic staff. We will refer to this as “Review 2”.

The specific content of Review 2 is as follows:

• In the waiting room where there are patients they don’t like, they come over the wall from the next room and hit and kick it
• They repeatedly hit the waiting room where there are patients they don’t like

Although this case is about a claim for compensation for defamation against the poster by the beauty clinic, not about the deletion of the review, it is considered that the points of contention would be basically the same even if the deletion of the review is disputed in a provisional disposition.

Court’s Decision

The court made the following decision on this case. For the requirements for defamation, please refer to the following article for a detailed explanation.

https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation[ja]

Judgment on Review 1

First, regarding the review that patient Y’s treatment history was loudly discussed despite the presence of people nearby, the court judged that it met the requirement of lowering the social evaluation of Medical Corporation Y, which is one of the requirements for defamation.

It can be said that the general reader would get the impression that the plaintiff medical corporation, despite the presence of a third party, verbally informed the patient of his treatment history, making it known to the third party, and that the plaintiff medical corporation lacks consideration for individual privacy, thereby lowering the social evaluation of the plaintiff.

Tokyo District Court, June 24, 2020 (Reiwa 2) Judgment

However, regarding the latter review that patient Y’s treatment history was loudly discussed despite the presence of people nearby, the court recognized the public nature of the information, assuming that the leakage of the information itself was true.

Since the posts in question discuss the appropriateness of a medical institution, which is a matter of social concern, the facts that the posts in question point out or form the basis for opinions and criticisms can all be said to be matters of public interest.

Tokyo District Court, June 24, 2020 (Reiwa 2) Judgment

In conclusion, although Review 1 regarding the leakage of treatment history meets the requirements for defamation, the illegality was denied, and patient Y, who posted the review, was not held liable for damages.

For a detailed explanation of the establishment of defamation and the public interest of reviews, please refer to the following article.

https://monolith.law/reputation/libel-law-utility[ja]

Judgment on Review 2

On the other hand, regarding Review 2, which states that they hit and kick the wall of the waiting room from the next room when there are patients they don’t like, it was judged that it meets the requirements for defamation as it lowers the social evaluation of Medical Corporation Y.

It can be said that the general reader would get the impression that the staff of the plaintiff medical corporation, when there are patients they don’t like, hit and kick the wall of the waiting room where the patient is, showing their malice in an obvious way, thereby lowering the social evaluation of the plaintiff medical corporation.

Tokyo District Court, June 24, 2020 (Reiwa 2) Judgment

Also, since the content of Review 2 was not recognized as true, unlike Review 1, the illegality was not denied. As a result, Review 2 was judged to be defamation against Medical Corporation X.

However, only 100,000 yen was recognized as compensation for emotional distress for Review 2 (a total of 130,000 yen in damages was recognized, including the attorney’s fees and investigation costs borne by the plaintiff, Medical Corporation X).

How to Remove Reviews from Beauty Clinics

If a beauty clinic has been subjected to defamatory reviews on the internet, the first thing to do is to remove these reviews.

One way to remove reviews is to contact the administrator of the site where the review was posted and request removal. However, it is not guaranteed that the site administrator will always comply with the request to remove the review.

Therefore, if the site administrator does not voluntarily comply with the request to remove the review, you will need to seek a provisional disposition for removal from the court. This is referred to as a “removal provisional disposition”.

What is a Removal Provisional Disposition?

A removal provisional disposition is a simplified version of a regular civil lawsuit, personalityized by the fact that a conclusion can usually be reached in a relatively short period of about 1 to 2 months.

As time passes from the posting of a review on the internet, there is a tendency for the post to spread on social media and large bulletin boards. Therefore, it is necessary to use a provisional disposition procedure that can reach a conclusion quickly.

For more details on the procedure for a removal provisional disposition, please refer to the following article.

https://monolith.law/reputation/provisional-disposition[ja]

Key Points of Removal Provisional Disposition for Beauty Clinics

If a review spreads and significantly lowers the image of a beauty clinic, it not only becomes a matter of life and death for the clinic’s management, but also causes anxiety for existing patients.

Therefore, if you discover a defamatory review about a beauty clinic, we recommend that you apply for a removal provisional disposition at an early stage.

Although a removal provisional disposition is a simple legal procedure, specialized legal knowledge is essential for the preparation of documents. Therefore, it is advisable to consult a lawyer to increase the chances of removing the review.

Summary

Beauty clinics are often the subject of customer reviews. Furthermore, due to the sensitive nature of beauty clinic services for some patients, they are prone to receiving critical reviews.

There may be instances where the beauty clinic itself is at fault.

However, among these reviews, there are clearly false negative reviews and excessively aggressive ones. Leaving such reviews unaddressed can cause significant damage to the reputation of the beauty clinic.

Since legal procedures, including provisional dispositions, are often required to request the removal of reviews, it is reassuring to consult with a lawyer who is knowledgeable about online defamation issues as early as possible.

Introduction to Our Firm’s Measures

Monolith Law Office is a legal office with high expertise in both IT, particularly the internet, and law.

In recent years, information related to reputational damage and slander spread on the internet has caused serious harm. In the case of beauty clinics, word-of-mouth can directly lead to customer visits, and if left unattended, it could potentially become a matter of life and death for the clinic.

At our firm, we provide solutions to such damages, including identifying the poster of the damaging content. Details are provided in the article below.