Social Media Accounts: Who Owns Followers After Employee Termination?

Social media platforms have become invaluable assets for modern companies. Followers, profiles, and reach significantly influence customer relationships, employer branding, and marketing success. This raises a critical question: Who owns these digital assets when an employee leaves the company?

Increasingly, companies and employees ask: “Who owns the LinkedIn account after termination?” Can an employee simply take their contacts and followers, or does the company have a right to them? This article examines the employment law, corporate law, and civil law aspects of this topic. We provide legally sound insights and practical solutions for self-employed individuals, startups, and growing companies.

Social Media Profiles in Employment: Classification and Significance

Social media accounts in companies are now essential for marketing and personal branding. Employees often act as brand ambassadors, whether on LinkedIn for employer branding or on Instagram for product advertising. This blurs the lines between private profiles and company accounts.

From a company's perspective, an employee’s social media reach is an economic asset. It's a company asset they don't want to lose when an employee departs. Conversely, employees view profiles and followers as part of their personal professional identity. This mixed situation creates potential for conflict, which is often legally unclear and thus requires explicit agreements.

Legal Question: Who Owns Accounts, Followers, and Contacts Upon Leaving?

Principle: Without a specific agreement, personal social media accounts generally belong to the employee. An employer’s claim to an account or its contacts largely depends on the account's use and assignment. Case law typically distinguishes between three categories:

Genuine Company Accounts: These are established and managed by the company, used exclusively for business purposes. They usually operate under the company or brand name. Ownership clearly rests with the company. If an employee only has access credentials as part of their duties, they must hand them over at the end of the employment relationship. The employer can demand the continuation of the account, but not under the employee's name if the employee was personally named.
Purely Private Profiles: These accounts are created privately by the employee (perhaps even before employment). They operate under the employee's email address and name and primarily contain private content. Such profiles belong to the employee. The employer has no right of surrender and cannot demand that the employee post company content or hand over the profile after leaving. Private followers "belong" to the employee, as they intentionally engaged with the person, not the company.
Mixed-Use Profiles: In practice, hybrid profiles are common. These are personal to the employee but were used intensively for company purposes during employment. Examples include a LinkedIn profile heavily used for employer content or an Instagram account used partly privately and partly for company marketing. These cases are the most legally challenging. They require an overall assessment of all circumstances.

Criteria for Account Assignment

Assigning an account to an individual or the company depends on circumstantial evidence. Courts consider criteria such as (see AG Brandenburg, judgment of 31.01.2018 – 31 C 212/17):

Time and Reason for Creation: Was the account explicitly created on behalf of the company during employment, or did it exist as a private profile beforehand?
Registration Data: Under whose name does the account operate, and to which email address is it linked (private vs. company email)?
Profile Design: Does the profile clearly indicate its service to the company (e.g., use of company name, logo, company mention in bio/imprint, link to company website)?
Content Usage: Is content mainly business-related (employer campaigns, product advertising) or predominantly personal? Are followers primarily customers/industry network or private contacts?
Access Rights: Does only the employee have access (sole admin rights, personal password), or do colleagues/the employer also have access? Is the account integrated into internal company tools?
Costs and Resources: Does the employer cover costs for the account (e.g., premium accounts, sponsored posts)? Does the company provide human or financial resources for account setup (e.g., content creation, marketing budget)?
Platform Terms of Use: Do the social network’s terms allow account transfer or company use of personal accounts? Many platforms like LinkedIn state personal profiles are non-transferable.

In a dispute, these criteria determine whether a profile is more business or private. A profile predominantly used for business and co-defined by the employer might be considered obtained in the course of employment. In such cases, a claim for restitution, analogous to Section 667 BGB, could apply. The employee would then have to surrender benefits gained from the activity, like account access or business contact information.

However, if the profile is clearly personal, private features dominate, and the employee retains control. The courts emphasize that this distinction is a question of the individual case. If there's doubt, the allocation tends to favor the employee unless there's a clear company connection.

For instance, the Brandenburg District Court ruled an employer was not entitled to a former employee's Facebook page if it could not be clearly assigned to the company (Brandenburg District Court, judgment of 31.01.2018 – 31 C 212/17). The page ran under the employee's name, was registered with his private email, and contained private posts. Though a link to the company page and its legal notice existed, the court found this insufficient to establish clear company ownership. The company imprint was only one indication, not decisive given the profile's mixed private character. The employee retained the Facebook page.

Conversely, if an employee created the profile with company data on company instructions (e.g., using a company email or exclusively for business posts), evidence would favor it being a company account. The employer could then demand handover of account access data. However, and this is crucial, the employer can never demand that an account be maintained under the employee's name. Even with access, the employer cannot operate the profile as if they were the individual.

Practically, a taken-over account would either need to be shut down or converted into an official company account. This is because personal profiles on social networks are, by definition, personal, and operating them under a false identity would violate terms of use and personal rights.

Legal Basis: Employment Law Duties vs. Personal Rights

Social media use at work involves various legal areas. In employment law, employees owe their employer work performance (Section 611a BGB) and have fiduciary duties. This includes protecting company interests and business secrets (Section 17 UWG).

Simultaneously, employees have personal rights and a right to privacy, even in the digital realm. During employment, social media use faces limits. Employees cannot post confidential company information without authorization and must act loyally. A classic case involved the Düsseldorf Labor Court where a trainee, sick-listed, posted vacation greetings on Facebook. The court deemed this a significant breach of loyalty, justifying termination without notice (ArbG Düsseldorf, judgment of 25.08.2011 – 7 Ca 2591/11). This illustrates how social media conduct can have employment law consequences.

Applied to accounts, loyalty means employees cannot misuse company social media channels for unauthorized purposes during employment. For example, an employee managing a company-provided account must act in the employer's interest and not secretly divert follower data. Once employment ends, general loyalty duties cease. Only post-contractual obligations like confidentiality or non-compete clauses then apply.

Civil Law Aspects and Trade Secrets

Under civil law, the question arises whether a social media account or follower list constitutes "property" or a protected legal asset of the company. Classical property law is excluded due to the lack of a physical object. However, protection as other rights under Section 823 (1) BGB is conceivable. An established company profile, for example, could be seen as an expression of the company's personality rights or protected legal property. So far, case law primarily resolves social media account issues under contract and competition law, rather than classifying them as absolute rights.

If an employee “takes” business contacts or followers upon leaving, Section 17 UWG (betrayal of business and trade secrets) and the Trade Secrets Act (since 2019) are often examined. A list of customer contacts exported by an employee can be a trade secret. However, this is questionable for publicly viewable social media contacts, as they are not secret. LinkedIn or XING contacts are usually publicly part of a network, making it nearly impossible to prevent them from being "taken."

Data such as private notes about customers that are not public, however, enjoy confidentiality protection. If an employee steals internal CRM data or uses confidential contact information from an account for a new employer, this may violate the Unfair Competition Act. In such a case, the former employer must prove the confidential nature and unauthorized use. Effective confidentiality strategies are crucial here.

Analogous Application of Section 667 BGB

Section 667 BGB analogously plays a central role. This standard obliges agents to hand over everything obtained from a business relationship. In employment, Section 667 BGB is applied by analogy to derive claims for restitution. If a social media account or its business contacts were "obtained in the course of employment," the employee must hand them over. This is frequently disputed.

The burden of proof lies with the employer. The employer must demonstrate which contacts were made via the account as a result of the employment contract and are attributable to the employer's business. The hurdles are high. A well-known example is the Hamburg Labor Court's 2013 ruling on an employee's XING contacts. The employer demanded deletion or return after termination. The ArbG Hamburg (judgment of 24.01.2013 – Ref. 29 Ga 2/13) ruled no claim for return existed. The employer could not prove contacts arose "precisely in the context of the activity owed under the employment contract."

Judges clarified that a mere business opportunity or contact during employment is insufficient. It must be shown the contact was part of the work obligation and made on the employer's behalf, which is difficult to differentiate on social networks. The court also refused to ease the employer's burden of proof; the employee does not have to demonstrate if a contact is private or business. The full burden rests with the employer. This precedent shows why companies often fail in court when trying to reclaim "their" followers or contacts.

Data Protection Considerations

Data protection aspects must also be considered. Social media contacts are personal data. If an employer demands an employee's LinkedIn contact list, for example, it quickly falls under GDPR scrutiny. The contacts/followers provided their data to the person, not directly to the company. Transferring this data without consent could violate data protection law. Furthermore, employers often lack access data for private accounts, making handover practically impossible. Managing data leaks and GDPR reporting is a related crucial area.

Corporate Law and Competition Law Implications

From a corporate law perspective, social media accounts raise the question of how to keep these intangible assets within the corporate sphere, especially for startups and companies. A social media account can be part of a company's goodwill (e.g., reach). When a company is sold, the buyer expects to acquire the social media presence. However, if these reside on personal employee accounts, the company typically has no entitlement.

It is advisable to treat important social media channels as company assets, for example, by creating official company-registered accounts. Managing directors and employees, as directors, have a duty to protect company assets. A managing director allowing the company's presence solely via their private profile could breach their duty of care (Section 43 GmbHG or Section 93 AktG), creating company dependence. The question of follower "ownership" also arises among shareholders, particularly if a founder with a strong personal brand leaves. Clear arrangements in articles of association or shareholders’ agreements should address such cases. Founder exit clauses are also relevant.

Finally, the issue can have competition law consequences. If an employee joins a competitor and uses social media contacts to poach customers, it borders on unfair poaching. Without a contractual non-competition clause, a moderate change of customer is legal. However, targeted poaching using knowledge gained from the old job may fall under Section 823 (1) BGB (infringement of established commercial operations) or Section 17 UWG.

The company can hardly prevent an employee from "taking along" followers to a new job. It can prevent the employee from using protected trade secrets or unfair means (e.g., misleading statements about the contact person). Such cases are difficult to prove, which is why contractual regulations and policies providing clarity in advance are preferred. Non-compete clauses, if carefully drafted, can offer some protection.

Company Account, Mixed Profile, or Private Account? – Practical Differentiation

Since legal consequences heavily depend on account classification, a clear distinction between company account and personal profile is essential. Here are typical constellations:

Company Account

A profile officially appearing in the company's name (e.g., Facebook page, Twitter account with company logo, LinkedIn company profile, corporate Instagram account). Such accounts are typically managed by marketing or a social media team, often with changing administrators. Legally, the account undoubtedly belongs to the company. Disputes are rare when employees change, as access data remains internal and the account continues seamlessly.

Important: Always ensure several authorized persons have access, or that access data is centrally documented. This prevents a departing administrator from "taking" or blocking the account. Ideally, registration should only occur via company email addresses, never personal ones.

Private Profile

An account independently maintained by the employee, either under their name without employer reference or with professional details but still used independently. Such profiles are exclusively controlled by the employee. Employers have very limited influence over employees' private social media activity. They cannot prohibit profiles or dictate content without cause, as long as no significant business interests are violated.

After leaving, the profile remains with the employee, including all followers. The company has no claims. However, the post-contractual duty of confidentiality (Section 823 (2) BGB in conjunction with Section 17 UWG and the Trade Secrets Act) remains. Disparaging statements (abusive criticism or defamation) are also inadmissible.

Mixed-Use Profile

This category is a legal gray area. A common example is LinkedIn profiles of employees registered personally but systematically used for company purposes (e.g., customer acquisition, recruiting, employer branding) during employment. Companies often support these profiles (e.g., with content templates, social media training, financial incentives) without formally labeling them as company accounts.

Instagram profiles of employees acting as influencers but posting company-specific content under their name also fall here. Such profiles typically mix private and business posts; followers come from personal, business, and industry-specific circles. There are currently no explicit legal provisions for these mixed cases. Account allocation relies on the aforementioned indications and is decided by courts case-by-case.

Startups and small companies heavily relying on personal branding risk creating such hybrid profiles. They benefit from employee profile reach but risk losing it if employees change. Courts tend to emphasize the account's personal nature unless a clear contractual agreement exists. Social media accounts are generally personal (e.g., LinkedIn, XING, Facebook, Instagram), with exceptions like Twitter allowing group or pseudonym accounts.

Practically, followers primarily follow the person. Even if the person mainly posts company-related content, followers are tied to the individual profile. The personal relationship argument suggests a simple profile transfer to the company after termination is unlawful. This also has data protection and competition law implications, as followers may not wish to be managed by a different operator.

Court decisions support this view. The ArbG Hamburg ruled an employee's XING contacts on their personal profile did not automatically have to be handed over. Similar restraint is expected for LinkedIn contacts. Another important legal aspect concerns imprint obligations and labeling requirements. The Telecommunications Telemedia Data Protection Act (TTDSG) with Section 18 (1) MStV still requires an imprint for telemedia operated commercially. Many employees add their employer's legal notice as a precaution for business-related posts. However, this alone does not automatically make it an official company account.

The imprint primarily safeguards business communication. A clearly highlighted company imprint could indicate business assignment, as the Brandenburg District Court found (case no. 31 C 212/17), though it alone is insufficient for clear profile assignment. In short: Without clear contractual agreements, a mixed profile remains legally difficult to classify. Case law tends to attribute it to the employee's personal property in cases of doubt. Companies should therefore prevent such situations and make appropriate contractual or internal arrangements.

Special Case 1: LinkedIn Accounts and Employer Branding

LinkedIn (and formerly XING) are professional networks for making professional contacts. Companies aim for a strong presence through official company pages and employee profiles. Employees in customer contact or PR/HR functions are encouraged to be figureheads. Campaigns like "Employees share company posts" or personal networking for the company are common.

What happens to a LinkedIn profile after an employee changes jobs? LinkedIn policy states a personal profile always belongs to the person and is not transferable. The company cannot technically take over the profile. If an employee with many industry contacts resigns, they "take their LinkedIn contacts with them", as these remain in their account. The company may lose a valuable network treasure. Legally, there's little to prevent this if it's a personal profile.

Note: LinkedIn contacts are reciprocal. The company (via other employees or a CRM database) ideally also knows these people. It's advisable not to rely exclusively on LinkedIn for business contacts but to enter them into internal company systems. This way, the employer retains access even if the social media link is lost through the employee. This practice helps defuse conflicts upon dismissal.

In cases where a LinkedIn account was heavily employer-influenced (e.g., created on company recommendation, all content provided by marketing, profile as an extension of the company page), it could be argued the account is an employer-financed work tool. Still, the person remains the official owner vis-à-vis LinkedIn. An employer can at most contractually agree on certain actions upon leaving: updating the current position, reporting contacts to the successor, or limiting network use for a period (which risks becoming a post-contractual non-compete clause).

Practice shows many employers hope a departing employee will voluntarily benefit the company with their connections (e.g., by introductions or informing customers of new contacts). This is hardly legally enforceable without clear agreements. Employers using LinkedIn specifically for business should decide: Do they rely on personal profiles or official channels? A solution could be a parallel LinkedIn company page where followers engage with the company. Also, team accounts (e.g., "Employee first name of company XY") can be used, though this often violates LinkedIn guidelines as accounts should represent real people.

Employer branding via employee profiles is a double-edged sword: authentic and effective, yet legally uncertain for the company. The recommendation is to create contractual clarity for such strategies. This links directly to topics like legally compliant influencer marketing.

Special Case 2: Instagram Influencers in the Company

On Instagram and similar platforms, personality is central. Companies collaborate with influencers, sometimes developing their own employees into influencers to reach younger target groups. For example, a marketing employee runs a lifestyle channel, occasionally sharing company products or insights. The company might support her with photo equipment, content, or by boosting her reach (e.g., linking to the official company account).

Here too, if it's the employee's personal account that "also" promotes the company, she retains the account and all followers upon leaving. Even significant company contribution to growth (advertising, shoutouts, financial support) does not confer ownership. The employer's investment becomes a marketing effort that might vanish when the person leaves. Companies should consider this risk when using personal branding strategies.

Conversely, employees enriching their private channel with employer content should be aware of legal issues like imprint obligations, advertising labeling, and copyrights. Posting company photos, for example, requires rights or employer approval. Ideally, such issues are regulated in a social media policy. Copyright and personality rights protection for creators is a related topic.

If the Instagram account is formally managed as a company channel (e.g., @firma_xyz, with the employee as administrator), it is not personal and clearly belongs to the company. However, companies often prefer official accounts for brands and encourage voluntary employee additions. The boundary between private and business blurs when company content is shared on private accounts. One solution: contractually require employees to clarify in their profile that the account is private ("opinions are my own" or similar) to avoid giving the impression of an official channel.

In summary: Instagram accounts personally managed but set up with company resources remain personal accounts without specific agreements. The company can at best exert moral or trademark influence, but cannot force a transfer. Companies should carefully consider resources invested in assets they don't legally own. It might be more sensible to promote their own company Instagram, featuring employees officially. This can also relate to judgments on surreptitious advertising.

Special Case 3: Accounts Without Formal Assignment (Employee as Admin)

Sometimes, social media presences unofficially run for the company are administered via a private account. Examples: An employee initiates a Facebook group for customers and manages it as an admin without official assignment. Or an employee is the sole administrator of the company's official LinkedIn page. Such situations are risky if the person leaves the company.

Unofficially created accounts: If the account is attributable to the company but "unofficially" created, the company should take control upon employee departure. Without prior arrangements, this can be difficult. The company can argue the employee knew the account belonged to the company via claims from management without mandate or implied agreements. Amicable settlement is often necessary. It's strongly recommended to formalize such unofficial channels early, e.g., by adding superiors as admins or changing registration to a company address.
Official company websites with only one admin employee: The situation is clearer. The website belongs to the company, and admin access is a "resource." HR or IT should reassign admin rights before the last working day. Failing to provide replacement admins can be problematic; a frustrated ex-employee might block or damage the account. Platforms like Facebook and LinkedIn offer multiple administrators, a feature that should always be used (principle of dual control).
Trademark and Name Rights: If an employee administers an account containing the company name or trademarks, the company has strong trademark law leverage. An account bearing the company name cannot be operated under that name after the admin leaves, as it would be unauthorized use of the trademark or name. In such cases, injunctive relief can be sought (Section 12 BGB for name rights or trademark law) to prohibit further use of the company name. This means the account must be handed over or deleted. This scenario particularly arises when no clear owner was named. Thus, every company-related account should have a clear imprint or profile notice stating its ownership to prevent disputes. This reinforces the importance of trademark protection for startups.

Conclusion on mixed and unofficial accounts: Unclear circumstances increase conflict risk. In doubt, if an employee holds an account under their name with their access, they initially control it. The company must then use legal levers or negotiations. The best leverage exists if the account is clearly a company account (name/brand), invoking trademark and competition law. Otherwise, persuasion or a contract is often the only way.

Conflict Avoidance Through Clear Guidelines and Contracts

Given the legal uncertainties, the best advice is to proactively avoid conflicts over social media accounts. Companies should establish internal rules early, rather than waiting until an employee leaves. Recommended measures include:

Social Media Policies and Guidelines

A good first step is a social media policy. It can define:

Types of social media accounts connected to the company (official, project-related, personal with/without company link).
How accounts are labeled and who can create them.
Who "owns" content and contacts (a clear statement, though not legally binding, provides guidance).
How mixed profiles should be handled (e.g., separating professional and private content, or requiring business content only through approved channels).
Actions upon employee departure (e.g., relinquishing admin rights, removing company logos, updating bio).
Handling of access data: Document all company-related accounts. Passwords for company accounts must be accessible to the employer. Personal accounts are exempt, but their exclusion should be clear.

Such guidelines should be specific, providing clear reference points in emergencies. They can also include netiquette and compliance rules (e.g., prohibiting public discussion of internal problems). It's crucial to inform all employees and ideally have them confirm these rules (e.g., as an annex to the employment contract or in a company agreement).

Employment Contract Regulations

Binding contractual clauses are even more effective. Employment contracts for employees in social media roles or those using profiles for business should contain specific provisions:

Assignment of Accounts: For example: "Social media accounts used exclusively or predominantly for work-related tasks are company accounts and must be handed over to the employer upon leaving." Or: "Accounts provided by the employer remain employer property."
Obligation to Cooperate Upon Resignation: For example: "Upon resignation, the employee undertakes to provide the employer with all business contacts generated exclusively in employment via social networks in a common format and to delete them from their personal account." Caution: Such an obligation might be interpreted as a post-contractual non-competition clause, requiring compensation under §§ 74 ff. HGB. Wording must be carefully considered. A milder version: "Business contacts are to be documented internally and deleted on request, unless this conflicts with the employee's own legitimate interests." This allows flexibility.
Labeling Obligations: The contract could require employees to correctly state if social profile statements are private or business-related and to include disclaimers or legal notices for business use.
Return of Access Data: Standard for company accounts, but can be expressly included, with a contractual penalty for refusal or data deletion.
Copyright and Rights of Use: If employees create social media content (texts, images, videos), stipulate that the employer is entitled to these or has usage rights, even if published on the employee's profile. This ensures reuse if the account is removed. Ensuring a clean chain of rights is vital for all created content.
Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Clauses: To prevent employees from using gained followers to poach customers or colleagues, a temporary non-solicitation clause can be agreed. For example: "For 12 months after leaving, the employee will not actively attempt to poach customers acquired via the company's social media channels." Compliance with legal requirements is essential; a general contact ban is a non-competition clause, requiring compensation. A mere non-solicitation clause (not approaching customers) can sometimes be agreed without compensation if limited in time/clientele and formulated as an ancillary agreement. However, this is complex and requires individual legal drafting. Liability risks for pseudo-self-employed individuals also show the importance of clear contractual terms.

Existing contracts should be checked. Clauses like "all work equipment and documents must be returned" might cover employer-financed social media accounts. But doubt requires specification; otherwise, a virtual account's inclusion remains unclear.

Involvement of the Works Council

In larger companies with a works council, social media is subject to co-determination (Section 87 (1) BetrVG). Works council consent is needed for employer guidelines or monitoring. A works agreement on social media defines the framework: working hours and social media, official statements, guidelines for private posts, etc. Regarding account ownership, it could stipulate that official accounts are always used for company social media work, or how content is handed over if private accounts are used. Co-determination safeguards employee interests, such as privacy.

Documentation and IT Management

Beyond formal rules, a crucial practical measure is for IT or communications to maintain a list of all relevant social media presences, including admins, access data (for company accounts), and responsible persons. This avoids "losing" an account because access data is unknown after departure.

Additionally, a fixed step in a company's offboarding process can be "Social media handover done? (Yes/No)." This checks if the employee is removed from company accounts, has returned connected company devices, and if posts are planned to inform external parties (e.g., "Employee X has left, new contact Y" on the website or via press releases to redirect followers).

Sensitization of Employees

Finally: education and communication. Employees (especially in startups) often overlook legal consequences when using social media for their employer. Companies should communicate expectations and rules early. Employees contributing their channels should understand the implications. Ideally, create a win-win situation: the employee strengthens their personal brand, the company benefits, and both know how to part fairly when the time comes. For example, "We support your LinkedIn development (training/budget), in return, you agree to a clean profile handover upon leaving: remove company references and make network contacts available during transition." Such agreements aren't fully enforceable but foster goodwill. Employee participation schemes also highlight the need for clear agreements.

Case Law: Precedents as Guidance

While no supreme court ruling by the Federal Labor Court or Federal Court of Justice exists on social media account ownership, some courts have set important cornerstones:

ArbG Hamburg 2013 (XING contacts): No employer claim for deletion or surrender; employer failed to prove contacts arose from work duties. Employer bears full burden of proof. Quintessence: Personal LinkedIn/XING contacts generally remain with the employee, unless explicitly agreed otherwise.
AG Brandenburg 2018 (Facebook page): Employee retained Facebook account due to private registration and mixed content, despite company link in legal notice. Quintessence: Mixed profiles tend to be attributed to the employee without clear agreement.
ArbG Düsseldorf 2011 (Facebook post when sick): Employees must not damage trust through disloyal social media behavior; posts can breach employment duties. Quintessence: Loyalty duties apply online during employment. Indirectly, loyal use of personal accounts doesn't automatically grant employer rights.
ArbG Münster 2021 (photo publication): Courts increasingly address data protection and social media issues. ArbG Münster ordered an employer to pay €5,000 for publishing an employee photo on social media without consent (case no. 3 Ca 391/20). Quintessence: Companies must consider data protection and personal rights in social media, highlighting the need for clear account responsibilities. Legally compliant publication of images extends to all digital content.
Higher Regional Court of Celle 2015 (liability for employee posting): Employer liable for copyright-infringing social media post by an employee in an official capacity (e.g., teacher using photo on school website) (decision of 09.11.2015 – Ref. 13 U 95/15). Transferable: If an account is a company channel, employee legal infringements can be attributed to the employer. Quintessence: Account ownership entails responsibility. A company should only claim ownership where it can exercise control and supervision. Conversely, if an employee holds an account alone, they bear sole future responsibility. This also touches on liability of platform operators for user comments.

These legal examples underscore a central message: without clear allocation, legal uncertainties arise, usually to the employer's detriment. Preventive action is thus crucial.

Recommendations for Employers

Given the numerous pitfalls, here are specific recommendations for employers regarding "social media and employees":

Create Clear Relationships: Define which social media presences are official and which are private for your company. Communicate this clearly to employees. For example: "Our employees' LinkedIn profiles are private, even with company affiliation. Official communication occurs via our LinkedIn company page." Or: "Certain roles require a work-related account transferred to us upon departure," which must be contractually secured.
Introduce a Social Media Policy: Establish written guidelines, ideally with the works council, governing social media use and actions upon leaving. This avoids ambiguity. A good policy balances company interests (contact protection, brand image) with employee interests (private expression, career profile). Strategic planning for influencer agencies also requires clear policies.
Contractual Agreements: Adapt employment contracts for new employees if social media is part of their job. For existing employees, supplementary agreements can be made (with consent) or discussed during promotions/salary reviews. Managers and sales/marketing employees especially need individual agreements on social media account handling. For example, a clause requiring a salesperson to report LinkedIn contacts upon leaving to inform customers. Observe employment law limits (no excessive commitment without compensation). Effective contract drafting for SaaS companies emphasizes such specific clauses.
Prefer Company Accounts: Wherever possible, use company accounts instead of personal ones. For a blog, set up a company blog with changing authors, not an employee's personal account. Same for Twitter: a corporate account (@product_name or @company_name) is safer than "@employeeXY." Personal accounts often have more charm and credibility, but weigh the trade-off. A middle ground: employees post personally but link to content also on the company account, ensuring content stays with the company.
Secure Access: Administratively ensure backup administrators for all relevant social media channels. No single employee should be the sole master of a password without emergency company access. Use password managers or central authorization systems. For networks allowing only one user (e.g., single Instagram login), keep access data securely and change it immediately when the responsible employee leaves. Confidential computing and data protection are vital here.
Training and Sensitization: Educate employees on legal basics of social media at work. Clarify what's permitted and where conflicts arise. If employees understand that a XING contact made at work is a customer contact from the employer's view, they'll understand employer interest better. Management should also understand employees' perspective: social media profiles are part of their professional identity. A respectful approach benefits both.
Seek Amicable Agreements Upon Leaving: Address social media topics during exit interviews with valued employees. Often, amicable solutions can be found: e.g., the employee makes a farewell post linking to the company account, or shares successor content to "redirect" followers. These goodwill actions cannot be forced but can be suggested. A severance agreement might include managing the company account as an external consultant for X months or joint posts with the successor. Creative solutions help both sides.
Don't Panic When Employees Change: A company shouldn't be entirely dependent on individual employee social media accounts. Employees come and go, taking some reach. This is unavoidable (and top talent brings followers with them). Crucially, customer relationships and brand awareness shouldn't solely depend on one person. Maintain the corporate brand so followers engage with the company as a whole. Build on team presence: showcase multiple company faces to avoid dependence on one personal brand.

Conclusion

Social media accounts as company assets are a double-edged sword: valuable, but legally complex. Without clear contractual bases, followers and profiles usually "belong" to the employee, especially for personal accounts like LinkedIn. Companies must acknowledge this reality and take precautions.

Preventive regulations, social media guidelines, and awareness among all parties can largely avoid disputes. When account ownership is unclear, court decisions guide us, tending to protect individual profiles without clear company attribution.

For self-employed individuals, startups, and growing companies relying on personal branding, finding a healthy balance is key: empower employees as brand ambassadors while safeguarding company interests with smart strategies. This also means maintaining fairness during separation. Legal coercion is often impractical here. It's better to prevent disputes by ensuring everyone understands their standing.

Ultimately, professionalism is decisive. A company strategically managing its social media presence appears better to the public than one publicly squabbling with ex-employees over accounts. With a clear concept, legal protection, and cooperative collaboration, questions like "Who owns the LinkedIn account after termination?" or "Can the employee take followers with them?" can be answered to everyone's satisfaction. This increases legal certainty and makes the company more attractive to new talent, who seek employers handling social media fairly and modernly in the digital age.