1. Introduction

For business operators, customer or commentator reviews can serve as both powerful endorsements and potential challenges, depending on their content. A recent judgment by the Supreme Court highlighted that consumers' freedom of speech is protected, provided their comments are truthful and non-misleading, and such comments generally do not infringe on business operators' rights.

This case involves a civil lawsuit filed by a restaurant operating company ("Plaintiff") against a globally renowned food guide ("Defendant"). The Plaintiff sought to prevent the Defendant from sending anonymous inspectors to evaluate or recommend its restaurant. The Taiwanese Supreme Court, in the case of 112 TaiShang No. 965 (2023), ruled that the Defendant's freedom of speech was upheld and did not violate the Plaintiff's rights. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. If commercial speech is truthful, non-misleading, and aimed at lawful transactions, it is considered to serve the public interest and is protected under constitutional freedom of speech. Contractual parties cannot restrict such freedom by invoking freedom of decision-making.

2. Facts

The Plaintiff's restaurant is a reservation-only establishment known for its Cantonese cuisine, while the Defendant is famous for publishing a global restaurant and hotel guide. In 2020, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's evaluation standards were unclear, the process opaque, and the inspectors' identities anonymous. Despite refusing the Defendant's inspectors via emails and letters on September 16 and 28, the Plaintiff received no response. As the Defendant's inspectors dined anonymously, the Plaintiff could neither identify nor refuse the evaluations in real time, raising concerns about the infringement of the Plaintiff's decision-making freedom. The Plaintiff sought a legal remedy under Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Taiwanese Civil Code to prevent the Defendant from sending inspectors and publishing evaluations.

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff's claims were baseless, arguing that the presence of anonymous inspectors at a public establishment did not infringe on the Plaintiff's rights. The Defendant maintained that the inspectors' anonymity aimed to ensure fairness and was protected by constitutional freedom of speech, making the Plaintiff's request to restrict the Defendant's actions unjustified.

3. Issue

The central issue is whether the Defendant's anonymous inspections and evaluations infringe the Plaintiff's decision-making freedoms. If so, the Plaintiff argues that the infringement should be prevented under Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, which states “[w]hen one's personality is infringed, one may apply to the court for removal. [w]hen one's personality is in danger of being infringed, one may apply for prevention.”

4. The Court's Opinion

The Taipei District Court found that the identity of consumers, including inspectors, is not central to forming a contract under civil law. The court noted that anonymous inspections do not affect the contractual relationship between the restaurant and its clients. As the Defendant had not reviewed the restaurant and there was no evidence of future reviews, the Plaintiff's claim of potential infringement was deemed unfounded. Thus, the request to prevent inspections was rejected.

The Taiwan High Court upheld this decision, stating that the Plaintiff failed to prove an actual or imminent violation of personal rights. It emphasized that anonymous inspections do not impact contract formation and that such inspections provide valuable public information, contributing to consumer choice and cultural discussion. The Plaintiff's claims were therefore dismissed.

In 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, highlighting that personal rights under Article 18 of the Civil Code require an “ unlawful act ” for a violation to be recognized. The Court reiterated that constitutional freedoms of speech and publication protect truthful and non-misleading commercial speech, including anonymous evaluations. It concluded that the anonymity of the Defendant’s inspectors does not unlawfully infringe on the restaurant's rights, as consumer identity is not crucial to the dining contract and upheld the previous decisions.

5. Summary

The Supreme Court emphasized that while Article 18 of the Civil Code protects individual dignity, an unlawful act must be proven for a violation to occur. It reaffirmed that constitutional freedoms of speech and publication protect truthful, non-misleading commercial speech, including anonymous evaluations, highlighting the balance between contractual rights and public interest. For business operators interacting directly with consumers or commentators, this ruling provides a legal perspective on handling such situations.