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 imposed a duty to make good non-pecuniary harm, unless expressly agreed, only in 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 is not limited to competitors: it may also be directed against a media outlet, former business partner or identifiable reviewer, but the interference must always be unlawful. The statute does not set the amount of satisfaction; the court assesses it, so the evidence concerning the intensity and reach of the interference matters.

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, but also true, information capable of causing harm (for true information, except for legitimate defence and comparative advertising), 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 may also be pursued together; the court decides which rules apply to the conduct.

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 sometimes resolves the matter faster than litigation and can 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.

How this will work under the new Civil Code

On 1 October 2026, the National Council of the Slovak Republic approved the new Slovak Civil Code, which will take effect on 1 July 2027. The current § 19b will be replaced by a rule under which a legal entity has, in the event of unlawful interference with its reputation, the same rights as in the case of unfair competition. The new code does not repeal unfair competition in the Commercial Code, and only the implementing amendment will definitively determine its relationship to the new rules. According to the explanatory memorandum, the new rules build on the reasoning in the Czech Constitutional Court’s judgment Pl. ÚS 26/24. A company will be able to claim, in particular:

• removal of the unlawful situation and refraining from the interference if its repetition is threatened, even before it occurs,
• information on the extent, manner and consequences of the interference,
• reimbursement of the reasonably incurred costs of a pre-action demand,
• according to the explanatory memorandum, also redress for non-pecuniary damage.

Monetary redress will, however, be possible only if another form is insufficient and the conditions of liability for damage are met. What must be proved will depend on the liability regime; for interference connected with the operation of a business, it cannot simply be asserted that the injured company must prove fault. Other redress, such as an apology, will be possible even where the interference was not culpable. If the infringer undertakes in writing to refrain from the conduct identified in the demand and accepts a reasonable penalty for each further breach, the risk of repetition will be deemed to have ceased until the next breach.

Where a competitor is concerned, disparagement will cease to exist as a separate form of unfair competition. False or misleading information about a competitor aimed at business customers will amount to deceiving other customers if it can mislead the average customer and influence their decision. True and non-misleading information could be assessed mainly under the general clause on dishonest conduct and, in comparative advertising, also as impermissible comparison.

Claims arising from interference that occurred by 30 June 2027 will be assessed under the existing legislation. If the interference continues, keep evidence of when the infringer learned that the information was untrue, such as a delivered demand. More in our article on damages.

Status as of 22 October 2026: the act has been approved and was signed by the President on 20 October 2026, but has not yet been promulgated in the Collection of Laws. Until 30 June 2027, the rules described above in this article apply.