Online reviews have become part of everyday life in Kuwait. You eat at a restaurant, visit a dental clinic or buy from a clothing shop, then open Google Maps or the business's Instagram account, write what you think and leave a star rating. Usually nothing follows. Sometimes, however, a customer receives a letter from the business's lawyer, or a summons, over a review written in a moment of anger; and sometimes a restaurant owner wakes up to a string of one-star reviews from accounts that have never set foot in the place. Both ask the same question: where is the line between a lawful opinion and an offence?
This article is devoted to that specific angle: reviews that customers write about commercial and professional businesses. It does not repeat the general elements and penalties of defamation and insult, which we covered in Defamation, Insult and Slander under Kuwaiti Law, nor the general rules on social-media publication discussed in Insult and Defamation via Social Media under Kuwaiti Law, nor liability within closed chat groups, which has its own article on insults in WhatsApp groups in Kuwait. Instead, it focuses on what makes a business review distinctive: it is a consumer's opinion of a service he paid for, published openly where prospective customers will read it, and capable of directly affecting the business's livelihood.
We approach the subject from two opposite sides: the consumer who wants to know what he may write without exposing himself to liability, and what to do if a complaint is filed against him; and the business owner who believes a review has crossed from criticism into abuse, or is a fake review planted by a competitor, and wants to know the options for replying, removal, complaint and compensation. The aim is not to frighten either side, but to draw the boundaries clearly so that each can exercise his right without overstepping it.
Quick Answer
A review that describes your own genuine experience in objective terms is, as a rule, lawful, even if it is harsh or hurts the business commercially. A statement such as "the food arrived cold, we waited an hour and nobody apologised; I don't recommend it" is an opinion about a service, protected by freedom of opinion and the principle of permissible criticism. A business that offers its services to the public implicitly accepts that those services will be assessed by the public.
Legal risk begins when a review moves beyond describing the experience into one of three things: first, attributing a specific fact that would expose the person to punishment or contempt, without evidence, such as accusing a restaurant of "knowingly serving spoiled meat" or a doctor of "forging his certificates"; second, using insulting language or abuse that attacks dignity and honour and has nothing to do with rating the service; third, inventing an experience that never happened, as with fake reviews from competitors or coordinated campaigns.
A business owner who has been harmed has graduated options: a courteous public reply, a direct approach to the reviewer, reporting the content to the platform, then a criminal complaint where an offence exists, and a civil claim for material and moral damage. Conversely, a consumer who wrote an honest, measured review has serious defences, chiefly the truth of the facts, good faith and permissible criticism. In every case the decisive factor is the text of the review, its words and its context, not how either side feels about it.
Legislative Framework
Several instruments govern online reviews in Kuwait, and none of them can be read in isolation:
- The Kuwaiti Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion and gives every person the right to express and publish his opinion orally, in writing or otherwise, in accordance with the conditions and procedures specified by law (Article 36). The freedom is guaranteed, but it is regulated rather than absolute, and it is the law that sets its limits.
- The Penal Code, Law No. 16 of 1960, contains the general provisions on defamation and insult, defining their elements and the circumstances in which liability is excluded. It remains the primary reference for what constitutes defamation or insult, even where the act occurs online.
- The Law on Combating Information Technology Crimes, Law No. 63 of 2015, deals with offences committed through information networks and IT means, including abusive publication on websites and apps. It addresses the electronic means of publication and connects it to substantive rules found in other laws, so it is not read on its own. Its provisions should be checked in the form in force at the time of the act, because the applicable text and penalty depend on a precise characterisation of the conduct.
- The Civil Code, Law No. 67 of 1980, sets out liability for wrongful acts: anyone who causes harm to another through his fault must compensate it, and compensation covers both material and moral damage. This is the basis of the damages claim brought by a business owner, or by a consumer who is abused in a reply.
- The Commercial Code, Law No. 68 of 1980, contains the rules on unfair competition between traders, a well-known form of which is spreading untrue claims that damage the reputation of a competing business or its products. We covered this in detail in Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets in Kuwait.
- The Consumer Protection Law, Law No. 39 of 2014, sets out consumer rights and opens a formal complaint route before the competent authority, a legitimate and important alternative to public naming and shaming where the breach is serious. Complaint mechanisms are explained in Consumer Protection under Kuwaiti Law.
- The Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 17 of 1960, governs how criminal proceedings are initiated, including the restriction that certain offences may be prosecuted only upon the victim's complaint, the effect of withdrawing that complaint, and the injured party's right to bring a civil claim before the criminal court.
For healthcare establishments, the legislation governing the medical professions adds a duty to keep patient information confidential, which, as we will see, restricts how a clinic may reply to reviews. For the wider framework of free expression in media publication, see Media and Publications Law in Kuwait.
Substantive Rules
1. Rating the service is not attacking the person
The whole subject turns on one distinction: assessing the work versus attacking the person. Permissible criticism is the expression of an opinion about a matter, a piece of work or a service, without touching the person, dignity or standing of whoever provides it. "The dish was far too salty", "my appointment ran two hours late" or "overpriced for the quality" all assess a service, and readers may take the view or leave it. Calling the owner "a thief" or using demeaning labels for the staff abandons the service and targets people, and that is where insult begins.
Permissible criticism need not be gentle, balanced or fair in the business's eyes. Sharp criticism, a one-star rating and a warning not to deal with the business all fall within opinion, provided they are tied to a genuine experience and expressed in terms proportionate to what happened. The usual question is whether the words were necessary to and connected with expressing a view of the service, or went beyond that into contempt for its own sake.
2. Describing your own experience is not making a general accusation
Many reviews do more than give an opinion; they report facts: "I found a hair in my food", "they charged more than the agreed price", "the doctor did not explain the complications before the procedure". These are facts, not opinions, so the writer answers for their accuracy. If they are true, happened to him, and are told as they occurred without exaggeration, he is in principle exercising a legitimate right to tell others about his experience.
The real danger lies in generalisation and criminal inference. Moving from "I found a hair in my food" to "this restaurant cooks in filth and deliberately sells spoiled food to cheat people" turns an account of an experience into the attribution of serious facts the writer cannot prove. So does moving from "I was not happy with my whitening result" to "this doctor is unlicensed and performs procedures that harm patients". The practical rule is simple: write what you saw, not what you infer about other people's intentions or other customers' experiences.
3. A true experience does not excuse insulting language
The experience may be entirely genuine and the anger understandable, yet the writer still answers for the words he chose. Abuse, demeaning descriptions and slurs about family, origin, nationality or affiliation have nothing to do with rating a service, and the truth of the underlying incident does not cure them. "The employee was rude and refused to exchange the item" is a legitimate review; describing the employee with obscenities or remarks about his nationality is a separate wrong. Hence our advice: wait until you have calmed down, and reread what you wrote with neutral eyes before posting it.
4. Naming individuals and posting images
Risk rises when a review does not stop at the business but names a particular employee or doctor, or attaches a photo or recording of a person without consent. Assessing a business's performance is one thing; publicly shaming an identifiable individual is another, especially when the name is coupled with words that harm his reputation. Photographing people and publishing their images without permission also raises separate questions about image and privacy rights, covered in Photographing Without Permission in Kuwait. A photo of the dish, the defective product or the invoice (with personal details masked) is very different from a photo of a staff member or another patient in the waiting room.
5. Clinics and healthcare establishments
Reviews of clinics and medical centres are sensitive in two directions. On one side, an accusation of medical error, negligence or incompetence strikes directly at a doctor's professional honour and is among the most serious attributions if it has no basis; the proper route for establishing medical error is the competent technical bodies and the courts, not a public review. On the other side, a clinic replying to a patient's review must not disclose the patient's health information, the details of his condition or his treatment, even to defend itself, because the duty of professional confidentiality continues to apply. A clinic's proper reply is general, inviting the patient to make direct contact, with no detail that reveals his condition.
6. Online publication and its consequences
A review posted on a public platform is not a remark made in a private gathering. It is available to an unlimited audience, stays up for a long time, can be copied and reshared, and appears to anyone searching for the business. Publicity is therefore clearly established, and alongside the general rules the conduct may fall under Law No. 63 of 2015 depending on how it is characterised. The reach of the content and how long it remained online are also factors usually weighed in assessing harm and compensation. Deleting the review later does not erase what happened, although prompt removal and an apology are evidence of good faith and carry real weight in any settlement.
7. Fake reviews and unfair competition
The most damaging abuse in this area does not come from real customers at all, but from competitors, from people paid to post negative reviews of a business they never used, or from coordinated campaigns aimed at dragging down a particular business's rating. Freedom of opinion does not protect such conduct, because permissible criticism presupposes a genuine experience; an invented review is not an opinion but a false claim. Several heads of liability may combine: criminal liability if the content attributes facts or insults, liability for unfair competition if it comes from or on behalf of a competing trader, and civil liability for the harm caused.
In the other direction, a business that buys fake positive reviews for itself, or asks staff and relatives to post as customers, engages in conduct that may amount to misleading consumers, and it weakens its own position when it complains about negative reviews. Making a refund or a free service conditional on deleting a negative review also calls for care: an amicable settlement the customer freely accepts is lawful; pressuring him with threats is something else.
8. When the review becomes a pressure tool
Occasionally someone uses a negative review, or the threat of one, as leverage: "give me money or free meals, or I'll post a review that destroys your reputation". Such conduct falls entirely outside freedom of opinion and, depending on the circumstances, may raise suspicion of threats or extortion, offences we discuss in Electronic Threats and Extortion under Kuwaiti Law. The distinction is fine but fundamental: a consumer may demand his legitimate remedy, such as an exchange or a refund, and may write about his experience; he may not bargain his silence for a benefit he is not owed.
9. The owner's reply and its limits
A business owner has a legitimate right to reply publicly and give his side. But the reply is itself a public publication subject to the same rules. If it insults the customer, accuses him of lying or fraud without evidence, or discloses his personal data, order details or phone number, the owner may turn from victim into defendant. The professional reply that wins readers' trust concedes what can be conceded, calmly corrects inaccurate facts and invites direct contact. Prospective customers read the reply as closely as the review, and a measured response often turns a negative review into evidence of a business that takes complaints seriously.
10. Asking the platform to remove a review
Online platforms generally provide ways to report content they consider contrary to their rules, such as abusive content or content not based on a genuine experience. The decision, however, rests with the platform under its own standards; the outcome cannot be predicted in advance, and one should not assume that a review will be removed merely because it is negative or harsh. The review should be documented before it is reported, since its removal may weaken the evidence if the owner later goes to court. A court claim may also seek removal of the content, though enforcing that against a platform operating outside Kuwait is a practical question that depends on the circumstances.
11. Proof and the truth of the facts
On the criminal side, the burden of proving the offence lies with the prosecution, and the business owner must provide evidence of the publication and of who made it. On the other side, the truth of what the consumer reported is a very important element of the defence, but it is not automatically a complete answer in every case: the law regulates when proof of the truth of an allegation is admissible and on what conditions, and the position varies with the nature of the fact, the status of the person concerned and whether the public has a legitimate interest in knowing it. In practice, a review that recounts a true experience in measured words rarely amounts to defamation at all, because it attributes no disgraceful fact but describes a service. Keeping the invoice, photos and messages is therefore the consumer's best protection.
12. Withdrawal, settlement and civil compensation
Many of these disputes end in settlement: the consumer deletes or edits the review and apologises, and the business withdraws its complaint. For offences that the law allows to be prosecuted only on the victim's complaint, withdrawal has a significant effect on the criminal case, as explained in Withdrawing a Criminal Complaint in Kuwait and Criminal Settlement in Kuwait. The settlement is best recorded in a clear written document stating what each party undertakes and whether it covers the civil claim.
Civil compensation rests on fault, damage and causation. A business claiming damages must actually prove the harm, such as a fall in bookings or sales, or cancelled contracts after publication, and must link it to the review rather than to other factors. Compensation extends to moral damage to commercial reputation and professional standing, and its assessment is for the court in light of the seriousness of the abuse, its reach, how long it stayed online and the conduct of both parties. We address the compensation side in Defamation and Insult in Kuwait: Penalties and the Right to Compensation.
Principles of the Court of Cassation
Among the settled principles in cases of publication, defamation and insult, which naturally apply to online reviews:
- The Court of Cassation has consistently held that determining the true meaning and import of words is a matter for the trial court, provided the words are read as a whole, in their context and occasion, rather than isolating a single word or sentence from the rest.
- Permissible criticism is the expression of an opinion on a matter or a piece of work without touching the person responsible; once criticism goes beyond that into shaming or contempt for its own sake, it ceases to be permissible.
- Whether a statement attributes a fact or merely expresses an opinion is judged by the meaning an ordinary reader takes from its context, not by what the writer later claims he meant.
- Criminal intent in defamation and insult is usually inferred from the words themselves where they are inherently disgraceful; claiming one was joking or venting passing anger does not help.
- The assessment of compensation, including for moral damage, is a question of fact for the trial court, provided its reasoning is sound.
Methodological note: the principles above are general statements of settled tendencies in publication and defamation cases. We have not cited specific judgment numbers, because we do not attribute to the Court a ruling whose number, date and text we have not verified. We are not aware of a published principle dealing specifically with reviews on rating platforms; the general rules apply to them. Application varies with the wording and circumstances of each review, so this summary should not be relied on in a pending case without studying the relevant judgments.
Practical Steps and Documents
If you are a consumer about to write a negative review
- Write once you have calmed down, not in the heat of the moment.
- Describe what happened to you: the date, the order, the problem and how the business handled it.
- Separate facts from opinion: "I waited an hour" is a fact, "the service is bad" is an opinion, and both are acceptable.
- Avoid criminal accusations such as fraud, theft, forgery or cheating unless you have conclusive proof; even then, a formal complaint is the safer route.
- Avoid naming or photographing staff, and avoid any insulting word or remark about origin, nationality or religion.
- Keep the invoice, photos, messages and payment receipt.
- If the breach is serious, such as unsafe food or possible medical error, use a complaint to the competent regulator; that route is legitimate as long as you act in good faith.
If you receive a complaint or summons over a review
- Do not delete the review before capturing it in full, showing the text and date; you may need to prove exactly what you wrote, not what the business attributes to you.
- Gather evidence of your experience: invoice, photos, messages and the names of anyone with you.
- Do not respond with a new review or an angry post; that weakens your position.
- Do not give a statement to investigators before consulting a lawyer who has seen the actual text.
- Consider settlement: editing, deleting or apologising may end the dispute at the lowest cost if the review contains excessive wording.
If you are a business owner harmed by a review
- Document first: full screenshots showing the account name, link and date, preferably in a formal manner that can be relied on before the authorities.
- Check your records: is there an order, booking, invoice or appointment matching the reviewer's account? Its absence suggests the review may be invented.
- Reply professionally: calmly, without insult or disclosure of data, inviting direct contact.
- Report to the platform through the available mechanism, stating the reason, such as abuse or the absence of a genuine experience.
- Watch for patterns: if several reviews arrive in a short time from new or similar accounts, document all of them; it may reveal a coordinated campaign.
- Criminal complaint: where there is insult or a criminal attribution, file a report with the authorities handling electronic crime or the Public Prosecution as appropriate, bearing in mind that some of these offences require a complaint filed within the legal time limit.
- Damages claim: supported by evidence of harm, such as sales or booking figures before and after publication, cancellation messages, and whatever links them to the review.
Key documents: screenshots and the link to the review, the business's details and commercial licence, order and invoice records, correspondence between the parties, evidence of harm, and any similar reviews suggesting a coordinated campaign.
Hypothetical Cases
Case 1: Harsh but measured
Hypothetical facts: A customer ordered a cake from a sweet shop for her daughter's graduation party. It arrived three hours late and in a different design from the one agreed. She wrote on Google Maps: "Ordered a cake a week in advance; it arrived after the party ended, in a different design, and nobody called to apologise. Very disappointing; I wouldn't recommend them for events." She attached a photo of the cake and the chat showing the agreed design. The shop threatened to sue unless she deleted the review.
Legal analysis: The review recounts personal facts backed by documents, expresses an opinion without insult, and relates directly to the service. It is, in principle, permissible criticism, and any commercial harm to the shop flows from the poor service, not from any fault of hers. The shop's better course is an apology and an amicable resolution, not threats.
Case 2: A genuine grievance, excessive words
Hypothetical facts: A dental patient unhappy with a filling posted a comment on the clinic's Instagram account naming the dentist and calling him "a butcher and a con man who robs patients and has no real degree", urging his followers to share it.
Legal analysis: Dissatisfaction with the result is a legitimate opinion, but the comment went beyond it into a demeaning description of a named individual and the attribution of serious facts, theft and a false qualification, without evidence, coupled with a call to spread it. This exposes the writer to possible criminal and civil liability, and the sincerity of his dissatisfaction does not protect him. If he believed there was a medical error, the right course was a complaint to the competent authority and a request for a technical opinion.
Case 3: A wave of fake reviews
Hypothetical facts: A newly opened restaurant in an area full of restaurants received twenty one-star reviews within two days from new accounts. Some mention dishes not on its menu; others describe visits on days it was closed. The owner notices that several of the accounts follow and praise a nearby competitor.
Legal analysis: These are not customer opinions but invented claims, so permissible criticism does not protect them. The case is built on proving that no experience took place, through order records, closing days and the menu, and on linking the accounts to a common source, a technical question that may require formal investigative steps. If the competitor's involvement is proven, it will be liable for unfair competition and damages, in addition to any criminal liability depending on the content. Meanwhile, the reviews should be documented and reported to the platform.
Quick Comparison
- "Slow service, high prices, not recommended": opinion on a service; lawful in principle.
- "Found an insect in my dish, here is the photo": a personal fact; lawful if true, and the photo supports it.
- "This restaurant cheats people and uses spoiled ingredients": generalisation and criminal attribution; risky without evidence; a formal complaint is safer.
- Naming an employee or doctor with a demeaning description: a move from rating the service to attacking a person; high risk.
- Abuse or remarks about origin or nationality: a separate wrong; the truth of the experience does not cure it.
- A review by someone who never dealt with the business: a false claim; no protection.
- Coordinated reviews from a competitor: unfair competition, with possible civil and criminal liability.
- Threatening a review to obtain a benefit: outside freedom of opinion; may raise suspicion of threats or extortion.
- A business reply that insults or exposes customer data: makes the business itself liable.
- A good-faith complaint to a regulator: a legitimate route, not defamation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be sued for leaving a single star with no comment?
A lone star rating is an opinion on the service with no attribution and no words, so it is hard in principle to treat it as insult or defamation. The position changes if it is shown that you never dealt with the business and are part of an organised campaign.
Do I have to prove every word of my review?
Opinions are neither proved nor disproved, but you may have to answer for the facts you reported. That is why keeping the invoice, photos and chats protects you if the accuracy of your account is disputed.
I wrote the truth. Is that enough to clear me?
Truth is a very important factor, but it does not excuse insulting language, and it is not admissible as an unrestricted defence in every defamation case; the law regulates when proof of truth is accepted. An honest, measured review rarely reaches court in the first place.
Does deleting the review end the problem?
Deletion does not undo the act if an offence was already committed by publication, but it usually eases settlement, reduces harm and shows good faith. A written settlement with the business is what actually ends the dispute.
Can I review under a pseudonym?
A pseudonym does not change the legal character of the content, nor does it make the writer impossible to identify, since account data may be sought through lawful procedures in criminal proceedings. What matters is what you write, not the name you write under.
May a business delete my comment from its Instagram account?
An account holder can generally manage comments on its posts as the platform allows. That does not stop you expressing your view elsewhere within the same limits, or filing a formal complaint if you have a claim.
Is it abuse if the business replies that I am "lying"?
The business may say your account is inaccurate and give its own version. Accusing you of deliberate lying or fraud in insulting terms, or publishing your data, may create liability depending on the words and context.
I received a letter demanding I delete a review by a deadline or face a complaint. What should I do?
Neither ignore it nor reply in anger. Capture the review as it stands, collect your evidence and have a lawyer assess whether anything in it needs amending. If it is measured, you are entitled to keep it; if it contains excessive wording, an early edit is usually wiser.
How can I prove a review came from a competitor?
Start with what you hold: no matching order or booking, impossible details such as non-existent dishes or closing days, and reviews that arrive together with similar wording. Linking an account to a specific person usually requires formal investigative steps.
Can a business claim damages without a criminal case?
Yes. Civil liability rests on fault, damage and causation and can be pursued in an independent civil action, or through a civil claim before the criminal court where criminal proceedings are brought.
Is it different if the review concerns a government body or public official?
Criticism of public services and of officials in the performance of their duties carries particular considerations in publication cases, but the limits on language and attribution still apply. This needs separate assessment in each case.
Am I liable for resharing an abusive review someone else wrote?
Resharing may be treated as a fresh publication exposing the resharer to liability, particularly if he adds endorsement or comment. Care is needed before sharing what others write about a business or a person.
Conclusion
Online reviews serve consumers and businesses alike: they help the first choose, and show the second where it falls short. Kuwaiti law does not stop consumers from speaking their minds; the Constitution guarantees it. But it asks them to stay within the bounds of describing their experience, without attributing crimes they cannot prove, without insulting language, and without inventing what never happened.
Business owners, in turn, are not expected to tolerate defamation or organised campaigns; they have graduated tools, from replying and reporting to complaints and damages. Choosing the right tool matters as much as having it: suing a customer over legitimate criticism can damage a business's reputation more than the review itself.
Because every case turns on the actual text of the review, its context and the evidence on both sides, a reliable legal opinion is only possible after examining the review itself and the circumstances of the experience.
Legal Notice
This article is general legal information on Kuwaiti law and does not constitute legal advice or create any relationship between the reader and the firm. Its contents are subject to legislative amendment and to judicial application to the facts of each case.
If you are a consumer facing a complaint or threat over a review you wrote, or a business harmed by abusive or fake reviews, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm will examine the review and its evidence, assess your legal position, and handle settlement, the complaint, your defence or a damages claim as your interests require. Contact us or book an appointment to review your case.
