A company’s reputation has value: damage to it can justify monetary redress

Defamation before a key customer, a competitor’s misleading comparative campaign or fabricated reviews damage an asset a company has built over years. For a long time, it was uncertain whether a company could claim money for the reputational interference itself without proving lost profits. The Czech Constitutional Court’s plenary answered this in January 2025; in Slovakia, the answer is written into the statute. The regimes differ and should not be confused.

Czechia: the Constitutional Court closed a decade-long gap

Since 2014, the Czech Civil Code has linked monetary redress for non-pecuniary harm, unless expressly agreed, to cases specifically provided by law (§ 2894(2)). Harm to a legal entity’s reputation was missing. The Czech Supreme Court therefore held in case 23 Cdo 327/2021 that a legal entity could not obtain monetary satisfaction. The association Milion chvilek subsequently challenged the same legal doctrine in separate proceedings concerning its own reputation. As judgment Pl. ÚS 26/24 recounts, its constitutional complaint arose from the decision in case 23 Cdo 2494/2022; the association was not a party to case 23 Cdo 327/2021.

In judgment Pl. ÚS 26/24 of 15 January 2025, published on 22 January 2025, the Czech Constitutional Court’s plenary dismissed the application to annul §§ 135 and 2894(2) of the Civil Code. It nevertheless held that effective protection of legal entities’ reputations under Article 10(1) of the Charter requires applying by analogy the same remedies as unfair competition protection under § 2988, including adequate satisfaction for non-pecuniary harm and, where appropriate, money. The Court also set a boundary: reputation protection must not serve strategic lawsuits against criticism on matters of public interest (SLAPPs). Courts must distinguish legitimate exercise of rights from harassment.

An older Czech holding remains useful: good reputation is presumed. Under Supreme Court judgment 30 Cdo 1385/2006, a legal entity has a good reputation from formation until the contrary is proved. It is assessed by conduct in commercial relationships: an entity failing to fulfil obligations properly and on time cannot rely on a good reputation.

Slovakia: the right is expressly in the Civil Code

Slovak law needs no analogy. Section 19b of the Civil Code, Act No. 40/1964 Zb., protects a legal entity’s name and reputation and expressly provides for monetary satisfaction.

Unofficial English translation:

In the event of unauthorised use of a legal entity’s name, an application may be made to the court requiring the unauthorised user to refrain from its use and remedy the unlawful situation; adequate satisfaction may also be sought, including in money. — § 19b(2) of Act No. 40/1964 Zb.

Under § 19b(3), the same applies correspondingly to unlawful interference with a legal entity’s reputation. Protection may be sought against anyone: a competitor, media outlet, former business partner or identifiable reviewer. The court determines the amount, making the quality of evidence concerning intensity and reach decisive in practice.

Unfair competition: a second route against competitors

If another competitor harms the reputation, the Commercial Code also applies. Under § 44, unfair competition is conduct in economic competition contrary to fair competition practices and capable of harming competitors or consumers. Listed forms include disparagement (§ 50), spreading false, and in certain circumstances true, information capable of causing harm, and free-riding on another competitor’s business, product or service reputation (§ 48). Remedies resemble those for reputation protection.

Unofficial English translation:

Persons whose rights have been infringed or threatened by unfair competition may require the infringer to refrain from such conduct and remedy the unlawful situation. They may also seek adequate satisfaction, including in money, damages and restitution of unjust enrichment. — § 53 of Act No. 513/1991 Zb.

The conditions differ. Unfair competition protection presupposes a competitive relationship and conduct contrary to fair competition practices; § 19b protection also operates outside competition. Claims are often pursued together, with the court determining the legal classification.

What your business should do

• Document the interference immediately: dated screenshots, archived pages and business partner statements. Online content disappears quickly and the claimant bears the burden of proof.
• Record consequences: cancelled orders, client questions and reduced demand. Monetary satisfaction does not depend on financial loss, but these facts influence its amount. Damages and restitution may be claimed alongside it.
• Start with a properly drafted demand to withdraw the statements and apologise. This can resolve some cases faster than litigation and later prove that the infringer knew of the interference.
• Operating in Czechia too? Pl. ÚS 26/24 directly supports a monetary claim, but the argument rests on Czech law. Keep the regimes separate.

If someone harms your company’s reputation, speed and evidence quality matter. We assist with unfair competition and reputation protection, calculating and pursuing damages and unjust enrichment claims and litigation representation.