The In a decision on costs, the Saarland Higher Regional Court ruled that Meta is entitled to a reasonable period of time to review the legality of a blocking. Of course, that’s not a very specific time period. In the present case, however, the court found that Meta was not in default of the act if, since the service by the attorney of a demand to that effect 11 days had passed and the deadline set by the colleague had expired 4 days.
The case was based on the following facts: In May 2022, a user’s Instagram account was deactivated. The user did not agree with this and, through her lawyer, demanded that the platform operator restore her account. A deadline of seven days was set. Four days after the deadline had expired, the user finally applied to the Saarbrücken Regional Court for an injunction against Meta. After the user’s account was restored, both parties declared the matter settled. The Regional Court then ordered the user to pay the costs of the proceedings. This was the subject of their complaint.
However, the Saarland Higher Regional Court upheld the decision of the Regional Court. The user had to bear the costs of the proceedings in accordance with the legal principle of Section 93 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO ), as she had filed the application for the temporary injunction prematurely without sufficient cause. At no time did Meta dispute or reject the user’s request. Instagram have granted a reasonable review period according to thoughts of good faith. In any case, this time limit had not yet expired by the time the application was filed, 11 days after the lawyer’s request and four days after the expiration of the time limit set therein.
This decision is likely to be particularly relevant for commercially used accounts on Instagram. Although time may well be pressing for successful influencers, for example, one should at least be aware that acting too quickly could incur additional costs for taking legal action.