Protection of the Business Reputation of Pharmaceutical and Medical Organizations in Russia

 

April 23, 2025

 

Business reputation is a vital asset for any business. The dissemination of negative information about a company can lead to a decline in sales, loss of clients, and termination of contracts. Medical and pharmaceutical organizations are no exception.

Therefore, pharmaceutical and medical organizations take various measures to protect their business reputation, including filing lawsuits. Judicial statistics indicate that the number of such lawsuits in Russia is growing. However, the percentage of claims satisfied in this category of cases remains low year after year.

In this article, using examples from judicial practice, we will analyze:

• In which cases a medical and pharmaceutical organization can count on judicial protection of business reputation;
• What claims can be asserted against the violator;
• What must be proven to satisfy such claims.

What is Business Reputation?

Legislation classifies business reputation, along with life, health, and personal integrity, as intangible goods subject to protection (Article 150 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a definition of the concept of "business reputation".

To define this term, let us turn to judicial practice. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Case No. A56-17708/2014 [1] indicated that the business reputation of an organization should be understood as its professional reputation, earned in the environment of similar professionals (e.g., merchants) and persons to whom the organization's activities are directed (e.g., consumers).

Damage to an organization's business reputation can be caused by the dissemination of defamatory information about the organization itself, as well as regarding persons serving in its management bodies or employees of such organization.

Below, we will examine in detail the cases in which a pharmaceutical and medical organization has the right to demand protection of its business reputation.

In Which Cases Can Protection of Business Reputation Be Demanded?

In accordance with Clause 1 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a legal entity has the right to demand in court the refutation of information defaming its business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that it corresponds to reality.

Thus, to utilize this judicial method of protection, it is necessary to prove the existence of three conditions:

• The fact of dissemination of information;
• The defamatory nature of such information;
• The non-correspondence of the information to reality.

The absence of even one of the above conditions constitutes grounds for dismissing the stated claims.

At the same time, as indicated in Clause 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005, No. 3 "On Judicial Practice in Cases Concerning the Protection of the Honor and Dignity of Citizens, as well as the Business Reputation of Citizens and Legal Entities" (hereinafter – "Plenum Resolution No. 3"), the plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the lawsuit is filed, as well as the defamatory nature of such information. The burden of proving the correspondence of the disseminated information to reality lies with the defendant.

Below, using examples from judicial practice, we will analyze the specifics of proving each condition in more detail.

What is Understood by the Dissemination of Information?

Dissemination should be understood as the communication of information to at least one person in any form, including oral form, specifically:

• Publication, broadcast, or demonstration in the mass media;
• Dissemination on the Internet, as well as using other means of telecommunication;
• Statement in service characteristics, public speeches, or statements addressed to officials (Clause 7 of Plenum Resolution No. 3).

Thus, the methods of disseminating information are quite diverse.

The fact of dissemination of information by the defendant may be confirmed by any evidence meeting the requirements of relevance and admissibility. For instance, to record information posted on the Internet, parties typically turn to a notary to compile an inspection protocol. As evidence, one can independently take screenshots or record materials posted on an information-telecommunication network, indicating the address and the exact time of receipt. However, the risk that the court will deem them inadmissible evidence due to procedural violations increases. Furthermore, to satisfy the claim, it will be necessary to prove that the defamatory information was disseminated specifically by the defendant.

Let us illustrate this with an example from judicial practice. In Case No. A07-37373/2021 [2], a Public Organization of Persons with Disabilities filed a lawsuit against a Charitable Foundation for the protection of business reputation and the recovery of compensation in the amount of 3,000,000 rubles. According to the plaintiff, the defendant sent an appeal on the plaintiff's behalf to the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Health, and Rospotrebnadzor regarding the need to assess the actions of several pharmaceutical plants and federal medical institutions regarding the lawfulness of the importation into the Russian Federation and the use of the unregistered medicinal product "Zolgensma". The letter contained the following statements: "The aforementioned companies, having entered into a criminal conspiracy with medical institutions and individual doctors, are conducting closed clinical trials on children suffering from SMA by administering the medicinal product Zolgensma. The medicinal product is imported into Russia through closed import schemes; the quality of the medicinal product is not guaranteed".

In support of its position, the Public Organization cited that, as a result of operational-search measures conducted upon its application, it was established that the letter was sent using an IP address belonging to the defendant. As a result of the dissemination of this letter, a number of medical organizations refused to cooperate with the Organization. However, the court concluded that sending a letter from the IP address of the Charitable Foundation does not prove that the disputed letter was sent specifically by the defendant, since a Wi-Fi router is installed in the building and connection to the Internet is possible for any visitor, as well as other persons within a radius of 500 sq. m. from the building. The claim was dismissed due to the failure to prove the fact that the letter was sent by the defendant.

What Information is Defamatory?

A mandatory condition to be proven by the plaintiff is the defamatory nature of the disseminated information.

As clarified in Clause 7 of Plenum Resolution No. 3, defamatory information refers to statements alleging a violation of current legislation by a citizen or legal entity, the commission of a dishonest act, improper or unethical behavior in personal, public, or political life, bad faith in carrying out production-economic and entrepreneurial activities, or a violation of business ethics or customs of business turnover, which diminish business reputation.

It is often difficult to assess whether disseminated information is defamatory. For this purpose, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Concerning Disputes on the Protection of Honor, Dignity, and Business Reputation (hereinafter – "Review of Practice") [3] recommends that courts order a linguistic forensic examination or engage a specialist for consultation.

Thus, in Case No. A75-7388/2021 [4], a Dental Clinic filed a lawsuit against Citizen D. and a Company to recognize as defamatory to business reputation the information contained in an article published by the Company on the Internet: "The prosthesis installed a year ago was removed from the patient, and the remaining healthy teeth were extracted..." The court ordered a forensic linguistic examination. The experts concluded that the statement contained negative information about the Dental Clinic indicating the unlawful nature of its actions. The court took into account that the patient was informed of the goals and methods of assistance, possible intervention options, and their consequences in the informed voluntary consent. The defendants were ordered to publish a refutation and were also charged with the costs of the examination and notary services for securing evidence.

At the same time, information about an organization's rating cannot be considered defamatory to business reputation. Thus, in Case No. A45-34612/2022 [5], a Medical Clinic applied to the court against a Company that owns an Internet resource hosting information about city organizations, demanding that information about the clinic be recognized as defamatory to business reputation and be deleted. As established by the court, on the page dedicated to the clinic, the company rating was set at "0", which, in the plaintiff's opinion, did not correspond to the 168 published client reviews with varying scores. The court decided that information about a company's rating, which depends on the adopted calculation methodology, cannot in itself constitute information defaming the plaintiff's business reputation. Upon registration on the site, the clinic agreed to all terms of service usage. The claim was denied.

How to Assess Correspondence to Reality?

It should be noted that information does not correspond to reality if it constitutes false, inaccurate, or distorted statements of fact.

Recall that the burden of proving the correspondence of disseminated information to reality lies with the defendant; however, the plaintiff should not neglect the opportunity to prove the contrary. It is not required to prove the correspondence to reality of every single word or phrase; it is sufficient to prove that the disseminated information corresponds to reality as a whole (Clause 7 of the Review of Practice).

Proving this condition is accompanied by the greatest number of disputes in practice. Defendants often resort to the position: "I did not state a fact, but expressed my subjective opinion". The issue is that in Clause 9 of Plenum Resolution No. 3, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that evaluative judgments, opinions, and beliefs contained in contested statements are not subject to judicial protection under Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unless they are insulting in nature.

Let us consider the example of Case No. A40-114869/24-27-805 [6]. Company A. filed a lawsuit with the arbitration court against Company AZ for the protection of business reputation. The reason for the litigation was statements made by a top manager of Company AZ at a forum dedicated to patent rights for medicinal products. Public disputes between pharmaceutical companies AZ and A. began after Company A. introduced a generic of the medicinal product "Forxiga" into civil circulation. The AZ top manager expressed his attitude toward this situation, and a recording of the speech was also posted on the company's official website. The plaintiff demanded that seven fragments of the speaker's speech be recognized as not corresponding to reality and defamatory to business reputation, in the form of:

• Accusations of a crime (comparing the plaintiff to a thief, alleging a corporate raid of the market);
• Accusations of violating patent legislation (introducing counterfeit goods to the market, doubts about the quality of goods and the legality of their introduction into circulation).

During the dispute resolution, the court ordered a linguistic examination, posing the questions: "Do the contested fragments of the report contain negative information? If so, in what form is it expressed: statements of fact or evaluative opinion, judgment, assumption?" The experts concluded that the quotes regarding accusations of a crime constitute an evaluative judgment of the speaker. Fragments of the speech regarding violations of patent legislation were assessed as statements of fact. In evaluating the latter, the court took into account the decision of FAS Russia, which established a violation of the ban on unfair competition in the actions of Company A. regarding the introduction of the generic "Fordiglif" into circulation. The court concluded that the statements contested by the plaintiff are an expression of the speaker's personal attitude within the framework of a discussion at a specialized event or generally correspond to reality, and consequently cannot be recognized as defaming the plaintiff's business reputation. The lawsuit was dismissed.

Furthermore, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [7], the presence of evaluative judgments in a statement does not always mean that it contains no assertions the correspondence of which to reality can be verified.

Thus, in Case No. A07-31797/2020 [8], a dispute arose regarding a report aired on a federal TV channel about the treatment of patient B. at a Medical Center. In the report, B. said that during her stay at the clinic, she was tortured and beaten with sticks by the center's staff. The Medical Center applied to the court with a demand to compel the publication of a refutation and to recover compensation in the amount of 1,000 rubles. The courts of the first and appellate instances concluded that the information contested by the plaintiff represented B.'s personal opinion about the service provided and was not subject to judicial protection. The court of cassation overturned the decision, indicating that such a statement as beating and torture is a clear statement of facts that occurred to her in the clinic and a violation of current legislation by the plaintiff.

Thus, even accusations of committing a crime may be assessed differently by courts depending on the context of the disseminated information.

How Can Pharmaceutical and Medical Companies Protect Their Business Reputation in Court?

The most common method of protection is filing a lawsuit for the protection of business reputation in court. Compliance with the pre-trial claim procedure is not mandatory for cases in this category, but we recommend taking measures for pre-trial settlement of the dispute, as in some cases this may allow achieving a result without lengthy litigation and legal costs. For example, Law of the Russian Federation No. 2124-1 dated December 27, 1991 "On Mass Media" grants the right to demand a refutation from the editorial office regarding defamatory information disseminated in that media outlet.

As a general rule, disputes regarding the protection of business reputation fall under the jurisdiction of arbitration courts, regardless of whether the participants in the legal relations are legal entities, individual entrepreneurs, or citizens. An exception is if the dispute did not arise in the sphere of entrepreneurial and other economic activities (Clause 2 of Plenum Resolution No. 3).

Proper defendants in lawsuits for the protection of business reputation are the authors of the untrue defamatory information, as well as the persons who disseminated such information (Clause 5 of Plenum Resolution No. 3). If the information was disseminated by an employee in connection with the performance of professional activities on behalf of an organization, the proper defendant is the employer legal entity (Article 1068 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The employee may be involved as a third party not declaring independent claims, at the initiative of the court or the parties.

If it is impossible to identify the person who disseminated the contested information, the application is filed and considered by the court via special proceedings.

Incorrect selection of the defendant or failure to prove the fact of dissemination of information by them will result in the dismissal of the lawsuit.

Thus, in Case No. A53-357/2020 [9], an individual entrepreneur owning a chain of pharmacies filed a lawsuit against a Regional Public Anti-Drug Movement to recognize information posted by the movement on a webpage as defamatory to business reputation: "This is one of the most scandalous pharmacy chains selling narcotic drugs without a license. Such pharmacies exist in every district of the city, and everywhere there are crowds of zombies in front of these pharmacies..." The plaintiff demanded that the defendant be obliged to delete the information and to recover 1,000,000 rubles as compensation for harm. The court of first instance satisfied the stated claims. However, the appellate court overturned the decision on the grounds that the fact of dissemination of information by the defendant was not proven. The justification stated that the publications were posted starting from August 2017, while the movement was registered as a legal entity only in September 2019. The publications lacked information about the owner of the webpage and the person who directly published the information.

It is also necessary to assess whether it is possible to prove that the disseminated information affects the plaintiff's business reputation.

For example, in Case No. A40-8283/2017 [10], a Company filed a lawsuit against a TV Company and Citizen V. for the refutation of the following information disseminated on a YouTube channel and the TV Company's website: "Today, Russia completely imports coronary stents. With a demand exceeding one hundred thousand units, slightly more than 1,000 are produced in Russia using semi-artisanal methods". The Company, which was a manufacturer of stents, indicated in the lawsuit that such statements are defamatory and damage its business reputation. The court concluded that the content of the disseminated information does not mention the plaintiff, nor does it provide signs allowing the information to be correlated specifically with the plaintiff. The lawsuit was dismissed.

Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation grants the right to assert the following non-property claims for the purpose of protecting business reputation:

• Refute the information in the same way it was disseminated, or in another similar way;
• Publish a reply along with the refutation, if the information was disseminated in the media;
• Recall or replace a document, if the information is contained in a document emanating from an organization;
• Delete the information, if it has become widely known and, due to this, refutation cannot be brought to general public attention;
• Seize and destroy manufactured copies of material carriers, if deletion of the information is impossible without destroying such copies;
• Recognize the information as not corresponding to reality, if it is impossible to identify the specific disseminator.

Note that under Clause 10 of Plenum Resolution No. 3, an apology is not provided for by legislation as a method of judicial protection of business reputation; therefore, the court does not have the right to oblige defendants in this category of cases to apologize in any form. However, the court has the right to approve a settlement agreement in which the parties provide for an apology.

Thus, in Case No. A56-31933/2020 [11], Company N. filed a lawsuit against an online publication and Citizens Kh. and B. with claims to:

• Recognize as not corresponding to reality and defaming the business reputation of the Company the following information posted in an article: "Chief Pharmacologist: We treat ARVI with the contraceptive Kagocel and useless Arbidol... Kagocel (INN Gossypol) was long used as a contraceptive, causing spermatogenesis disorders... Simply put, the use of gossypol, and now Kagocel, led to male infertility";
• Oblige the deletion of this information from the article;
• Publish a refutation on the online publication's website.

During the consideration of the case, the court established that Company N. is the manufacturer of the medicinal product Kagocel, registered by the Ministry of Health of Russia in accordance with the procedure established by law. According to the product instructions, this medicinal product has no INN; the chemical composition of the product is sodium salt of the copolymer, and excipients. As a result of analyzing the presented evidence, including scientific works and WHO information, the court recognized as not corresponding to reality the assertions that Kagocel and Gossypol are the same substance, as well as that it affects human reproductive function. The court ordered the defendants to delete the information recognized as not corresponding to reality and to publish a refutation.

In cases regarding the protection of business reputation, it is also possible to assert property claims, such as compensation for damages and compensation for reputational harm.

The possibility of demanding compensation for damages is explicitly stated in Clause 8 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. These may be both actual damage and lost profits. More details can be found in our special article on this topic [12]. However, these claims are not widely used; plaintiffs generally prefer to assert claims for the recovery of reputational harm.

Note that unlike individuals, since 2013, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not grant legal entities the right to demand compensation for moral harm. Therefore, as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated in Clause 21 of the Review of Judicial Practice No. 1 (2017) [13], in the event of diminishment of a legal entity's reputation, it has the right to defend its right by asserting a claim for compensation for harm caused to the reputation of the legal entity.

According to the legal position formulated in the said Review, harm caused to business reputation should be understood as any diminishment thereof, which manifests, in particular, in the legal entity incurring damages caused by the dissemination of defamatory information and other adverse consequences in the form of the legal entity's loss of a positive opinion of its business qualities in the eyes of the public and the business community, loss of competitiveness, inability to plan activities, etc.

For the compensation of reputational harm, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduces a special standard of proof. Thus, it will be necessary to prove both the presence of general conditions of tort liability:

• A wrongful act by the defendant;
• The infliction of damages or other adverse consequences of these actions for the plaintiff in the form of loss of trust in business reputation or its decline;
• A causal link between the defendant's actions and the occurrence of adverse consequences;
• And the existence of a formed reputation in a specific sphere of business relations.

At the same time, as researchers of this issue correctly point out [14], due to the absence of a direct rule of law regulating this institution, judicial practice is contradictory. Often, satisfaction of this claim is denied on the grounds of failure to prove circumstances relevant to the case.

Thus, in Case No. A41-33154/22 [15], Company T. filed a lawsuit against Company D., asking the court to oblige the defendant to refute information defaming the plaintiff's reputation, namely: "Company T. submits analysis protocols for the medicinal product 'DRASTOP' which contain unreliable values of intrinsic viscosity", disseminated by sending a letter to 13 pharmaceutical organizations. In support of its claims, the plaintiff cited that it had organized a proper system of constant monitoring and quality control in all batches of medicinal products prior to their introduction into circulation. In the plaintiff's opinion, as a result of the defendant disseminating said information, adverse consequences ensued in the form of deterioration of business relations with partners and a decrease in the level of trust in its formed reputation.

During the case consideration, it was established that the issue of unreliable viscosity characteristics values was assessed by the antimonopoly authority during an antimonopoly investigation against the plaintiff in connection with its violation of the defendant's patent rights, and was confirmed. The court concluded that the motive for the defendant sending the letter was to inform interested parties about possible adverse facts and their consequences. In the decision, the court indicated that the plaintiff did not present evidence confirming the existence of reputational harm caused by the defendant's disputed statement. The claims were denied.

There is also a trend toward significantly reducing the amount of compensation for reputational harm. Thus, in Case No. A40-147237/2017 [16], the general director of a pharmacy filed a lawsuit with the arbitration court against an Online Publication for the protection of business reputation and the recovery of 200,000 rubles as compensation for reputational harm. In support of the claims, he indicated that the defendant published an article on its website containing information defaming him as a manager: "Are state pharmacies infected with corruption? After all, by selling expensive medications essentially to himself, the manager gets the opportunity to sell them at an inflated price. After all, he buys the medicines from himself, but with state money. The temptation to take more from the hospitable state pocket is great". The courts of the first and appellate instances denied satisfaction. Subsequent judicial bodies assessed the disseminated information as accusing the plaintiff of committing fraud and exceeding authority, which defames his business reputation. However, the compensation amount was reduced to 20,000 rubles.

Summarizing the above, we draw the following conclusions:

• As in other industries, medical and pharmaceutical businesses resort to judicial protection of business reputation. At the same time, the reasons for filing such lawsuits in medicine are, in most cases, negative statements by clients, while lawsuits for the protection of business reputation in the pharmaceutical business are typically a continuation of patent rights disputes.
• Lawsuits for the protection of business reputation are characterized by the complexity of proof and the presence of a significant number of evaluative categories of proof.
• There is an obvious need for legislative regulation of the institution of compensation for reputational harm to achieve stability and uniformity in judicial practice.

Given the above, we recommend contacting lawyers specializing in this area to assess the possibility and prospects of protecting business reputation.

____________________________

[1] Decree of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 26, 2015, in Case No. 307-ES15-5345.

[2] Resolution of the Eighteenth Arbitration Appellate Court dated March 24, 2023 No. 18AP-1581/2023 in Case No. A07-37373/2021.

[3] Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Concerning Disputes on the Protection of Honor, Dignity, and Business Reputation, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 16, 2016.

[4] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated June 30, 2023, No. F04-2293/2023 in Case No. A75-7388/2021.

[5] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated September 12, 2023, No. F04-4237/2023 in Case No. A45-34612/2022.

[6] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated March 24, 2025, in Case No. A40-114869/24-27-805. The decision was reviewed in the first instance.

[7] Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2023), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 15, 2023.

[8] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Urals District dated March 30, 2022, No. F09-1171/22 in Case No. A07-31797/2020.

[9] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated December 17, 2020, No. F08-11442/2020 in Case No. A53-357/2020.

[10] Decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated April 26, 2017, in Case No. A40-8283/2017.

[11] Resolution of the Thirteenth Arbitration Appellate Court dated February 26, 2021, No. 13AP-38443/2020, 13AP-2608/2021 in Case No. A56-31933/2020.

[12] Website of the BRACE Law Firm: https://brace-lf.com/informaciya/protsessualnoe-pravo/trebovanie-o-vzyskanii-ubytkov.

[13] Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2017), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on February 16, 2017.

[14] Gavrilov E.V. On Compensation for Reputational Harm to Legal Entities in the Context of Clarifications by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation // Civil Law. 2023, No. 6.

[15] Resolution of the Tenth Arbitration Appellate Court dated December 1, 2022, No. 10AP-21843/2022 in Case No. A41-33154/2022.

[16] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated July 8, 2019, in Case No. A40-147237/2017.