---
title: "How anonymous is a kununu review, really?"
date: "2026-07-28"
author: "Leon"
categories: ["How To","Review Platforms"]
url: "https://blog.reviewforest.org/how-anonymous-is-a-kununu-review"
language: "en"
---
When a company sets up a kununu review forest with us and then barely any reviews come in, the tree is rarely the problem. Three sentences keep coming up: "Will my employer figure out it was me?", "Why do I have to give my salary?" and "I don't want to create an account for this."
The first one matters most, and it deserves an honest answer rather than a reassuring pat on the head.
So you know whether you are in the right place: if you want to review without your employer recognising you, read on. If you are the company and want to know whether the author can be identified, read on too. Same answer, it just lands differently for each side.
A note for readers outside the DACH region: kununu is the dominant employer-review platform in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, roughly what Glassdoor is elsewhere. Everything below is German law, kununu's help pages are German.
## The short answer
Yes, kununu is anonymous, just not in the way most people picture it.
What the platform holds on you is an e-mail address. The help article [Bin ich bei kununu wirklich anonym?](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/5259885112849-Bin-ich-bei-kununu-wirklich-anonym) says a review requires nothing but an e-mail address, and that it is never displayed online. Clause 8.4 of the [kununu terms](https://www.kununu.com/de/info/agb) adds that kununu offers no guarantee as to its users' actual identity. It usually does not know your real name, so it cannot hand it over.
The same article carries a condition that is easy to miss: data does not go to third parties unless a law, a court or an authority requires it. "Absolutely anonymous" means absolute until a court orders otherwise.
The more useful line is this one: **anonymity holds as long as you are rating, not asserting.** The [kununu guidelines](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/5259820521489-Die-kununu-Richtlinien) give as an example of an opinion "I think I earn too little", and as an example of a fact "I earn less than the statutory minimum wage". Remember that second one. A German appellate court ruled on exactly that claim in 2026, against anonymity.
The risk that bites more often has nothing to do with courts: most people give themselves away through the detail in their own text.
## What you actually control
1. **Leave the optional fields empty.** Only position, department, gender and benefits carry the "Optional" label, and those do most to identify you. Job status is mandatory and cannot be left blank, as are the company, the recommendation question and the star categories. (The help article on anonymity calls both voluntary. The live form disagrees on job status.)
2. **Don't include details only a few people know.** No project names, no dates, no incident involving three people. Describe patterns, not episodes.
3. **Write opinions, not checkable assertions.** kununu's own infographic [Was sind Tatsachenbehauptungen?](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/11569028458257-Was-sind-Tatsachenbehauptungen) contrasts them: "you get blackmailed" is a factual claim, "I feel put under pressure" is an opinion. And the part that catches people out: adding "in my opinion" does not turn a factual claim into an opinion.
4. **Think about timing.** A review that appears three days after a termination assigns itself. A few weeks of distance costs nothing.
5. **Use a private e-mail address.** It goes to kununu, not onto the profile, but a company address is still a bad idea.
6. **Salary is a separate form.** The normal flow bundles three forms, review, salary and culture, with salary as step 2 of 3. Open the review form on its own and it is step 1 of 1, with no salary question. Per [Sind Gehaltsangaben anonym?](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/5139740909201-Sind-Gehaltsangaben-anonym), kununu only shows salary bands once two people report for the same role, and obscures the edges so single figures cannot be reverse-engineered.
That lines up with what kununu itself recommends. Its article on [dealing with threats from your employer](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/37494421667985-Wie-gehe-ich-mit-Drohungen-meines-Arbeitgebers-um) advises leaving out voluntary details, naming exact position, department and periods of employment, and phrasing things subjectively.
## Why context gives you away, not your name
In a company with 400 people, "department: accounting, position: clerk, former job" is harmless. In a team of twelve where exactly one person left last quarter, the same three fields are effectively a signature.
How far that reaches shows in the Hamburg Higher Regional Court judgment of 16 December 2025 (case no. [7 U 33/25](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Hamburg&Datum=16.12.2025&Aktenzeichen=7+U+33/25)), decided in main proceedings rather than as an emergency injunction. Four reviews were at stake and the court split the difference: for two, the employer had too little to check whether an employment relationship existed, so they went. For the other two it was enough. The court lists what could be pieced together: an employment period going back to the Deutsche Mark era, marginal employment status, several changes of department, descriptions of the premises, footer data on a termination letter, and a mention of a restored Mazda RX-7. In a business with roughly 15 employees, puzzle pieces like that add up to a fingerprint. Leave to appeal was refused.
The consequence is uncomfortable. The abundance of detail saved those reviews from deletion. The same detail makes the author recognisable to an attentive employer.
kununu draws a different conclusion. Its article [Kann ich verklagt werden?](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/37494888379025-Kann-ich-verklagt-werden) tells reviewers that if a court letter arrives, "mehr ist mehr": the fuller your information, the likelier kununu can defend a lawful review in court. True for the defence, the opposite for anonymity. If you want both, keep the detail out of the public review and save it for the case where only kununu sees it.
## When your employer disputes the review
Few people know this part, and it decides what anonymity is worth.
Employers can report reviews. If the report is well-founded, the [kununu review process](https://inside.kununu.com/kununu-pruefprozess/) runs in an order that matters: the review goes offline until it has been amended or the author has produced proof or evidence. Offline first, then the author gets contacted.
kununu then asks for [proof of employment](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/5259961960977-Warum-fragt-kununu-nach-einem-T%C3%A4tigkeits-Bewerbungsnachweis-oder-anderen-Dokumenten) and accepts only official documents: an employment contract, a reference letter, a payslip or an annual wage statement, each showing your real name, the company and the location. In individual cases, photo ID too.
What happens to that proof is worded carefully: it is reviewed internally and "niemals ungeschwärzt", never unredacted, passed to your former employer. Note: not "never", but "never unredacted". On the basis of the Federal Court of Justice ruling of 1 March 2016 (case no. [VI ZR 34/15](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=VI%20ZR%2034/15)), the company can request an anonymised version showing only the document type and the firm.
So the author identifies themselves to kununu, not to the employer. And there is a way back: under [Meine Bewertung ist offline](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/24228245233553-Meine-Bewertung-ist-offline-Was-kann-ich-tun) kununu lists the options, submit proof, amend the review, evidence your claims, or go to its complaints body. Deadline: six months.
The legal situation in detail, with statutes and case numbers
In February 2024 a headline went round the HR press: kununu must hand over real names. Search for it today and you land on law firm pages selling that state of play as current law. It is out of date. The chronology:
- **8 January 2024, Hamburg Regional Court (324 O 559/23):** an employer's application is rejected.
- **8 February 2024, Hamburg Higher Regional Court ([7 W 11/24](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG%20Hamburg&Datum=08.02.2024&Aktenzeichen=7%20W%2011/24)):** decided otherwise on appeal. Note: the operative part ordered no disclosure of names, it prohibited the distribution of two specific reviews. "Name them or delete them" comes from the reasoning and the coverage of it. The court required the portal to individualise the author far enough for the employer to check the claimed employment relationship. (Parts of the legal press date this to 9 February, the case law databases to 8 February.)
- **26 April 2024, Hamburg Regional Court ([324 O 559/23](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG%20Hamburg&Datum=26.04.2024&Aktenzeichen=324%20O%20559/23)):** the injunction is lifted and the application rejected. The appeal is pending under case no. 7 U 31/24, undecided. Most articles on the topic stop before this date.
- **17 December 2024, [Dresden Higher Regional Court (4 U 744/24)](https://www.wbs.legal/wettbewerbsrecht/urteil-zu-bewertung-des-arbeitgebers-kununu-muss-bewerter-nicht-preisgeben-81461/):** kununu need not reveal the identity where the portal contacts the reviewer, obtains anonymised documents and reports the result.
- **11 March 2025, Federal Court of Justice ([VI ZB 79/23](https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=11.03.2025&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZB+79%2F23)), on an employer review platform:** disclosure of subscriber data under [§ 21 TDDDG](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__21.html) requires a court order and content satisfying one of the listed criminal offences (§§ 185 to 187 of the Criminal Code). Value judgments do not qualify; in case of doubt free speech wins. Disclosure refused.
- **16 June 2025, [Bamberg Higher Regional Court (6 W 6/25 e)](https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/olg-bamberg-6w625e-bewertungsportale-arbeitgeber-auskunft-tdddg-2025-07-03):** confirms that line; the claim covers subscriber data only. IP addresses are usage data and fall outside it.
- **31 March 2026, Zweibrücken Higher Regional Court (4 W 4/26):** the exception. The reviewer had claimed, under "salary and benefits", that the employer paid below the statutory minimum wage. Not a mood, an arithmetically checkable assertion about a legal violation, so a statement of fact under § 186 of the Criminal Code. For softer categories such as work atmosphere it is different, the court held. ([Press release, Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Justice](https://justiz.rlp.de/aktuelles/detail/plattformbetreiber-muss-nutzerdaten-herausgeben))
On citation: § 19 (2) TTDSG became [§ 19 (2) TDDDG](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__19.html) under the law of 6 May 2024, in force since 14 May 2024. The duty to enable anonymous use is unchanged.
In practice: a critical but truthful review is not a route to your identity. An untrue factual claim with criminal relevance can be, via a court and over months.
Two more things, for honesty. kununu has not commented publicly since February 2024, neither on the injunction being lifted nor on the pending appeal. And we could not find a single published German case of someone being dismissed or warned over a kununu review. That is not proof it never happened: first-instance labour court judgments usually go unpublished. None has been reported.
None of this is legal advice, it is a summary of public sources. When it matters, ask someone licensed.
## For employers: the rules on asking for reviews
kununu is unusually specific here. The [kununu guidelines](https://support.kununu.com/hc/de/articles/5259820521489-Die-kununu-Richtlinien) draw a clean line under fair and neutral review requests, and clause 7.1 of the terms repeats it.
Allowed: inviting employees and applicants to leave a review on a voluntary basis, explicitly including in a company meeting, by newsletter or on the intranet.
Not allowed:
- paying for reviews
- offering benefits where doing so breaks the reviewer's anonymity (kununu's own example: vouchers for revealing the headline of your review)
- influencing the content or score, such as asking for a positive review
- targeting selected individuals or groups, for instance one department, or people who just got a raise
- pressuring people to write, change or delete reviews
The sanction is public: where systematic breaches are indicated, kununu puts a [warning notice](https://inside.kununu.com/kununu-richtlinien/#so-gehen-wir-vor) on the profile, also when a company reports an unusual number of reviews. Dispute every critical voice and you end up with a notice every candidate reads.
This helps more than any campaign:
- **Ask everyone, not a selection.** That is the kununu rule and the only version where the answer is worth anything.
- **Don't keep a list of who reviewed.** The moment your team suspects someone is counting, anonymity is practically gone, whatever kununu does.
- **Reply to the reviews you have.** An analysis of 3.4 million kununu reviews [published by Employer Telling in February 2025](https://arbeitgeberportal.kununu.com/blog/arbeitgeberkommunikation-studie-1/) found 90.3 percent went unanswered. Replying makes you stand out.
The employment law frame
A review cannot be ordered. The right to issue instructions under [§ 106 GewO](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gewo/__106.html) covers the content, place and time of the work owed; a public personal opinion is not part of that. Art. 5 (1) of the German constitution also protects the right not to express an opinion. And penalising someone for a critical review moves you towards [§ 612a BGB](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__612a.html).
If you have a works council, involve it early. We are not aware of case law on review campaigns, so treat this as an analogy: co-determination under § 87 (1) no. 1 BetrVG can apply even to rules that are expressly non-binding.
On free speech: the Federal Labour Court held on 5 December 2019 (case no. [2 AZR 240/19](https://www.bundesarbeitsgericht.de/entscheidung/2-azr-240-19/)) that abusive criticism only exists where defaming the person is the sole point. Sharp, exaggerated or polemical does not clear that bar. The case was not about a review platform, but the standards carry over.
On incentives there is a grey zone. The Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court held on 20 June 2024 (case no. 6 U 128/23) that tying entry to a prize draw to submitting a review, then advertising with those reviews, is misleading. That case concerned consumer product reviews, and whether it transfers to employer reviews is unsettled as far as we know. Cautious reading: anything tying a review to a benefit for the individual reviewer is risky.
## Where we fit into this
We build review forests, kununu ones included, and plant a real tree for every new review. Here is what we actually see: the review text, the star rating, the date, and the role label kununu publishes. No e-mail address, no name, no IP address. We simply never receive that data. The tree certificate carries no name either, usually a plain "Employee". Nobody has to identify themselves for a tree to happen, and no personal benefit hangs on any individual review.
What a tree cannot do is repair a bad mood. If your team has little appetite for saying something nice, the review rate will not move either. Reviews follow reality, not the other way round. The tree lowers the bar for people who wanted to say something anyway and never got round to it.