Liability of website operators for user comments – When and how operators are responsible for their users’ content

Introduction

The responsibility of website operators for user-generated content has become much more important in recent years, both in case law and in the public debate. A single comment with unlawful content can have considerable consequences for the operator of a platform and lead to injunctive relief, damages or even criminal prosecution. In Germany, the Telemedia Act (TMG) and the relevant regulations on data protection and freedom of expression play a central role here. The tension between freedom of expression and the protection of personal rights in particular shows how important it is to handle online comments clearly and with legal certainty. Various courts, including the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), have issued decisive rulings on the question of when a provider is liable for third-party content. These rulings emphasize that the line between permissible expression of opinion and punishable insults or defamation must be carefully observed. In addition, website operators are increasingly confronted with demands to delete content that is allegedly unlawful, although they often lack an overview of all statements. It is therefore essential for founders of start-ups and operators of SaaS or online services to know their rights and obligations in order to avoid legal disputes and strengthen the trust of their users. This blog post highlights the key aspects of operator liability in order to provide a comprehensive overview. It also shows which measures can be implemented to minimize the risk of legal disputes and to meet the high requirements of a professional platform.

Legal framework and principles of operator liability

In Germany, the question of the liability of website operators for user comments is primarily governed by Sections 7 et seq. of the German Telemedia Act (TMG). Accordingly, operators are generally not obliged to actively monitor the information provided by users or to investigate circumstances that indicate illegal activity. This so-called liability privilege stems from the European E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), which laid the foundation for the far-reaching limitation of liability of host providers. Nevertheless, the liability privilege does not mean that operators are completely free of responsibility: As soon as they become aware of a specific infringement, they must react immediately and remove the illegal content or block access to it. If they fail to do so, they may be liable for interference, which leads to injunctive relief and claims for damages. In several decisions, such as the “Blogspot ruling” (BGH, ruling of October 25, 2011 – VI ZR 93/10), the Federal Court of Justice has made it clear that providers cannot rely solely on automated monitoring once they have been notified of a specific infringement. This means a balancing act for operators: on the one hand, they should not be forced to carry out a general prior check; on the other hand, they must not remain inactive once they become aware of an infringement. Platforms with large numbers of users in particular quickly run into liability risks if they do not implement effective mechanisms for deleting illegal content. General civil law also plays a role in the area of personal rights violations, as claims for injunctive relief and damages can be quickly asserted here. In addition, criminal law provisions can apply if, for example, incitement to hatred, insult or defamation is involved. Section 185 et seq. of the German Criminal Code (StGB) provides for severe penalties for insult and defamation. Not only natural persons, but also companies whose economic reputation is impaired can take action against the operator. In practice, this complex legal situation means that operators should seek advice at an early stage in order to develop tailor-made protective measures. A sound knowledge of the relevant laws and case law is essential for any company that offers user-generated content.

Liability privileges and differentiation between pure host providers and content providers

The German Telemedia Act distinguishes between content providers and host providers, which is of considerable importance for the question of liability. A content provider provides content itself and can therefore be held liable for unlawful statements or representations, whereas a host provider primarily provides the technical infrastructure. However, case law has made it clear that the distinction is by no means always clear, as operators of social networks or forums, for example, sometimes act editorially and sometimes only take on hosting functions. As soon as the operator intervenes editorially in the content or adds its own comments, it can be classified as a content provider. However, the privileges for host providers apply if the operator only stores the content and does not actively control it. This classification also has an impact on the auditing obligations: Pure host providers are not obliged to check all content before publication. They only have to act if they are notified of a specific infringement. This has been confirmed several times by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and has already been implemented in numerous rulings in Germany. For start-ups and SaaS providers who operate a portal with a lot of user-generated content, the classification into these categories is of great practical relevance. As the business model often revolves around the provision of online platforms, it is important to design the processes in such a way that the liability privilege can be invoked in case of doubt. However, operators must be professionally set up with regard to automated filter systems and reporting mechanisms in order to be able to react immediately if they become aware of a specific infringement. If they neglect this duty, the liability privilege does not apply and they may be liable like a content provider. For your own risk management, it is therefore advisable to document all points properly and to establish a clear process for handling reported infringements. Finally, it is advisable to define transparent rules on comment culture in the terms of use so that users can adhere to a legally secure framework from the outset.

Limits of the limitation of liability and obligations to delete or block

Although the liability privileges aim to protect innovation and freedom of expression, they are limited in their scope. A website operator who does not promptly remove illegal content despite a specific notice can no longer invoke the liability limitations. The Federal Court of Justice has clarified in several rulings that there is an actual obligation to check content from the time it becomes known. If this obligation to check remains unused, there is a risk of being held liable as a disturber or even as a contributory disturber if one continues to tolerate unlawful statements. Furthermore, injunctions can quickly become a financial burden if operators do not immediately block or delete the comments. In this context, it is important to know that operators do not have to actively intervene in every dispute, but should only remove the illegal content. However, complete inaction is not an option either, as it can result in liability. The so-called “notice-and-takedown” procedure, in which a rights holder or affected person informs the operator of an infringement and requests removal, has become the international standard. For forums and blogs, these requirements mean that a functioning complaints management system is essential. Operators should carefully weigh up when a report is plausible and when it is possibly an expression of opinion that is protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression. To minimize abuse and the pretence of illegal content, it is advisable to introduce clear guidelines for reporting comments and a fair review process. The GDPR can also become relevant at this point if personal data is disclosed in comments or processed without authorization. Those who pay attention to this interplay of data protection law, personal rights and telemedia law can keep their platform within the legal framework and significantly reduce the risk of warnings. Ultimately, the challenge is to find a practicable balance between user freedom and legal protection for the operator.

Practical recommendations for start-ups and online services to minimize liability risk

For young companies and SaaS service providers in particular, which often rely on innovative business models, it is crucial to deal with the legal requirements for user-generated content at an early stage. A first step is to set out clear requirements and rules of conduct in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) and in a separate commentary guideline. This way, users know exactly what content is permitted and what the consequences are if the guidelines are violated. It is advisable to appoint an internal moderation team or at least a person who can intervene quickly in case of doubt as soon as an illegal comment is reported. Technical filter systems that intercept certain swear words or defamatory expressions in advance can be a useful tool, but are no substitute for a legal review in individual cases. In addition, operators should conduct regular training on compliance and digital law to ensure that all team members understand the importance of their responsibilities. The “notice and takedown” procedure plays a central role and should be clearly structured and easily accessible so that those affected can report infringements quickly and effectively. Transparency in communication with reporting parties is also important in order to avoid escalation and maintain a professional image. It is also advisable to document every report, including the measures taken, in order to be able to prove that you have properly fulfilled your obligations in the event of an emergency. It is often worthwhile for start-ups to work with external legal advisors who can help with the design of platform guidelines and the implementation of effective complaints procedures. In addition, start-ups should keep up to date with the latest developments in case law so that they can adapt their processes on an ongoing basis. It can be useful to carry out regular monitoring in which conspicuous discussions or content are identified and reviewed in good time. A proactive approach to feedback and criticism demonstrates responsibility and strengthens the community’s trust in the startup or service. Even if it involves effort, a well thought-out and legally compliant comment moderation strategy can protect the company from costly disputes in the long term and at the same time ensure a positive user experience.

Conclusion

Liability for user comments is a complex topic that is closely linked to personal rights, data protection and media law. Platform operators who create clear structures and guidelines from the outset not only minimize the legal risk, but also ensure a professional image. Start-ups and providers of innovative SaaS models in particular benefit from designing their platform responsibly, as this strengthens their credibility and market position. As a lawyer specializing in business consulting and contract drafting in the field of digital business models, I offer tailor-made solutions to meet the individual requirements of online services. Practical advice and forward-looking planning can significantly reduce liability risks and avoid reputational damage. In this way, platform operators create a secure environment for their users and at the same time position themselves as serious market participants. If you have any questions about specific cases or your business model, I will be happy to provide you with expert advice.