OLG Frankfurt am Main: Platform Operator Liability Requires Specific Complaints
A platform operator is only liable for infringing content from users if the complaints received are sufficiently specific. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main recently announced a decision rejecting claims for injunctive relief due to a lack of such specific complaints. This ruling clarifies the high bar for establishing platform operator liability.
The Case: Plaintiff vs. X (formerly Twitter)
The plaintiff in this case serves as the anti-Semitism commissioner in Baden-Württemberg. The defendant operates the social media platform "X", previously known as Twitter.
The plaintiff informed the defendant through a lawyer's letter about numerous tweets perceived as infringing. They requested the removal of this content and injunctive relief.
Subsequently, the defendant deleted the account of a user responsible for six of the disputed tweets. Following an urgent application from the plaintiff, the Regional Court initially ordered the defendant to cease disseminating five more detailed statements made by the user about the plaintiff.
Principles of Provider Liability
On appeal by the defendant, the OLG dismissed the application for injunctive relief. The court affirmed that the defendant could not be held liable under the established principles of provider liability.
A platform like "X" primarily provides a space for third-party statements. As such, a provider only becomes liable for infringing content once it gains knowledge of the infringement. This principle is crucial for understanding the boundaries of platform operator liability.
The Requirement for Specific Allegations
For a provider to be obligated to act, a data subject must present complaints that are specific enough to easily confirm the infringement based on the allegations. Only then is the provider required to further investigate and evaluate the reported facts. This legal standard ensures that platforms are not burdened with vague accusations.
Assessment of the Plaintiff's Complaints
In the present case, the lawyer's letter did not provide the defendant with sufficient factual knowledge. It failed to enable the defendant to recognize an infringement without a detailed legal or factual examination. There was merely talk of "illegal content" without any substantiation or detailed description of the facts.
The contested tweets themselves did not clearly indicate that the plaintiff opposed the dissemination of fabricated life facts lacking a factual basis. Nor did they inherently show opposition to facts that could not be proven true. This lack of inherent clarity meant the infringement was not readily apparent to the defendant.
The fact that the defendant ultimately blocked the user's entire account, rather than just deleting specific tweets, further suggests that the infringement was not easily recognizable. This comprehensive action indicates the defendant's inability to precisely identify and address individual infringing statements based on the complaint.
Implications for Notification Forms
The plaintiff also argued unsuccessfully that the notification form provided by the defendant lacked a text field for specific individual details. The OLG clarified that this form complies with the requirements of the NetzDG, which primarily focuses on criminal content.
Furthermore, the court noted that more detailed information could have been provided. Options included using the "Content" column or attaching an appendix. Therefore, the structure of the form did not excuse the lack of specificity in the complaints.
The decision issued in these summary proceedings is not contestable.
Conclusion
This ruling from the OLG Frankfurt am Main underscores the importance of precise and detailed complaints when seeking to establish platform operator liability for user-generated content. Vague allegations are insufficient to trigger a platform's obligation to investigate and remove content. Those seeking redress must ensure their complaints are specific enough for the platform operator to easily identify and verify the alleged infringement.
Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 13.6.2024, ref. 16 U 195/22
(preceded by Regional Court Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 14.12.2022, ref. 2-03 O 325/22)