A negative kununu review after a termination agreement can quickly become a problem for employees – but employers don’t always succeed in court. This is shown by a recent ruling from the Hessian Higher Labor Court (LAG) dated August 17, 2026 (Ref. 16 GLa 504/26). In this case, an employee had signed a termination agreement after a dismissal during the probation period, which prohibited him from publishing negative reviews about the employer on platforms like kununu. Shortly after, a critical review appeared there. The employer went to court seeking an injunction to stop the employee from publishing the review. Yet both the Wiesbaden Labor Court and the LAG dismissed the application. Why? The employer could not prove that the review was actually written by the former employee.
The Case: Negative Review on kununu After Termination Agreement
The employee worked as an HR Senior Sales Manager at a software company from August 1, 2025 to January 15, 2026. After an employer-initiated dismissal within the probation period, the parties agreed on a termination agreement on November 21, 2025. In it, the employee undertook not to publish any negative reviews, comments, notes, or references about the employer on social media or review platforms such as kununu.
In February 2026, a negative review of the company appeared on kununu. The employer was convinced only the former employee could be behind it, since the review contained details allegedly known only to him. The employer demanded kununu delete the review. Kununu initially removed it, but later stated a verification had confirmed the review’s authenticity and provided the employer with two redacted documents headed “Termination of Employment Relationship” and “Employment Reference.”
The employer then applied for an injunction prohibiting the employee from publishing or causing the review to be published. The employee denied responsibility for the review. He argued the cited circumstances were not “exclusive perception facts” but were known to several people in the company – HR, IT, supervisors, and colleagues. Both parties affirmed the truth of their statements by affidavit.
The Legal Question: When Is an Employee Liable for Third-Party Reviews?
In injunction proceedings, the focus is on a swift, provisional ruling. The applicant – here the employer – must establish a so-called “availability claim” (Verfügungsanspruch) and “grounds for urgency” (Verfügungsgrund) credibly. This means: they must show with predominant probability that they have a claim for cessation and that the matter is urgent. Legal bases include Sections 935, 940 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure) and Section 1004 BGB (Civil Code) by analogy, where defense against impairments is concerned.
The decisive point in this case was the burden of proof. The employer had to credibly demonstrate that the employee wrote the review. Mere suspicion is insufficient. Even an affidavit from the employer claiming only the employee could have known the information does not suffice if the employee likewise affirms by affidavit that he did not write it. The court must weigh the credibility of the respective accounts. Under Section 286 ZPO, the court decides at its free discretion whether a fact is to be regarded as true. In a “word against word” conflict, the applicant can prevail only if their version clearly outweighs the other.
In the present case, the employer could not rule out that other persons also knew the information mentioned in the review. The fact that kununu had confirmed the review’s authenticity did not help the employer, since this only proves the review came from a genuine current or former employee – not from whom exactly. The employer thus failed to provide the required proof that the employee himself published the review or caused it to be published.
kununu review termination agreement: Why the Injunction Failed
The Wiesbaden Labor Court had already dismissed the application for an injunction. The Hessian LAG confirmed this decision and dismissed the employer’s appeal. The reasoning: the availability claim was lacking because the employer could not credibly show the employee authored the review in question. The mere possibility that the employee might be behind it was insufficient.
The court clarified that an injunction can only issue if the violation by the respondent – i.e., the employee – is concretely proven or at least credibly established. That was missing here. The circumstantial evidence submitted by the employer, such as the redacted documents from kununu, allowed no clear inference to the author’s identity. The employer’s affidavit could not outweigh the employee’s.
The ruling shows: employers cannot simply obtain an injunction just because a negative review has appeared. They must present concrete evidence identifying the employee as the author. Otherwise the application fails – even if the termination agreement contained a corresponding clause.
What This Means for Employees: Social Media Clauses in Termination Agreements
Many termination agreements contain clauses prohibiting the employee from publishing negative statements about the employer. Such clauses are generally permissible as long as they do not violate statutory prohibitions or public policy. They may restrict freedom of expression, but within private contracts this is often acceptable. If you sign such an agreement, you should consider carefully whether you want to accept this obligation – because it also applies to statements on social media and review platforms.
If you want to submit a kununu review termination agreement, you should be aware of the consequences. Breaching the clause allows the employer to sue for cessation and potentially claim contractual penalties. However, the LAG has now clarified: the employer must prove you actually wrote the review. Mere suspicion is not enough. Conversely, this means: if you did not write the review, you can successfully defend against a cessation claim.
Anyone negotiating a termination agreement should therefore examine exactly which clauses it contains. With social media clauses in particular, it is worth questioning their scope. Is only publishing your own reviews prohibited, or also causing third parties to do so? Is there a contractual penalty? How long does the ban last? These details can be decisive in a dispute. An experienced specialist lawyer for employment law can review the contract and improve it if needed. Learn more about pitfalls in termination agreements for executives in our article on termination agreements for executives.
Practical Tips: How to Respond to Employer Cease-and-Desist Demands
If you receive a cease-and-desist demand from your employer after a dismissal or termination agreement, do not panic. First, check whether the demand is justified. Did you actually write a negative review? If yes, consider whether to remove the review voluntarily to avoid escalation. If no, reject the demand in writing and point out the lack of evidence.
It is important to preserve evidence. Save all correspondence, emails, and messages related to the review. Note when you saw the review and who had access to the relevant information. If the employer applies for an injunction, you must credibly show in court that you are not the author. An affidavit can help, but other evidence such as witness statements or IP logs is also relevant.
Do not let yourself be pressured. Many employers threaten an injunction to intimidate employees. Yet as the ruling shows, such applications succeed only if the employer presents hard evidence. If you are unsure, seek legal assistance. A specialist lawyer for employment law can assess the prospects and represent you in court. The cost question also matters: if you lose, you bear the legal and court costs. Here a litigation funder like RechtStark can step in, covering costs if prospects are good. This lets you enforce your rights without financial risk. For more on rights after dismissal, see our article on severance pay in operational dismissals.
Incidentally: even if you did not write the review yourself, the employer cannot hold you liable merely because you may have known about it. The cessation obligation from the termination agreement refers to your own conduct. If a third party wrote the review, you are not responsible – unless you instigated it. But you do not have to prove that; the employer must prove the opposite.
Conclusion: Your Rights After Dismissal and the Role of a Specialist Lawyer
The Hessian LAG ruling is good news for employees. It shows employers cannot simply use an injunction against negative reviews when authorship is not clearly established. A kununu review termination agreement does not automatically lead to an injunction – the evidence is decisive.
Nevertheless, you should be cautious. Social media clauses in termination agreements are to be taken seriously. If you sign such clauses, you must comply – even if the employer would find it hard to prove you wrote the review. But if you actually want to post a negative review, seek legal advice first. A specialist lawyer for employment law can weigh the risks and help you protect your rights. And if a legal dispute arises, RechtStark can fund the proceedings – so you are not left bearing the costs.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.