- The legal notice requirement for social media profiles is causing uncertainty and disputes among users.
- Linking to an external website may be sufficient if it meets the requirements of § 5 TMG and § Section 55 (1) of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty corresponds.
- Clear information in the linked legal notice is important to avoid confusion.
- The Regional Court of Trier ruled in 2017 that an imprint can be sufficient by means of a link.
- Direct links are crucial; text URLs alone may not be enough.
- For legal certainty, a direct link to the legal notice is recommended.
- A clear link protects against warnings and legal problems.
There is always controversy and uncertainty around the imprint obligation of social media profiles, but also of profiles on Twitch or YouTube channels. There are already numerous posts on my blog(see here).
Today I would like to clarify another question, namely whether the link to an external website is sufficient, on which in turn one meets the requirements of Section 5 TMG or Section 55 para. 1 Broadcasting State Treaty is sufficient.
This is probably to be expected, because many providers do not have enough opportunities to deposit a complete imprint. I also think so on my twitter, Instagram or Facebook profiles. One should only make it clear on the linked imprint that this applies to all social media profiles and also inform about what these profiles are, if it is a gamertag or similar.
Although there are really not many judgments on imprint issues, the Trier Regional Court has already ruled in 2017 that it meets the legal requirements for the indication of an imprint in the context of a commercial YouTube presence if another the homepage of the provider is referred to, on which in turn is transparently linked to an imprint.
However, it is important that the link is really linked on the social media portal or on YouTube/Twitch. Only one text with the URL may not be sufficient. In the decision of the LG Trier, the court took the view that there was at least a direct link on the defendant’s youTube presence on the defendant’s homepage, from which it was then linked directly to a provider label. The plaintiff could not prove otherwise and the General Court therefore considered, taking into account the case law of the Federal Court of Justice in 2006, sufficient to provide the defendant’s imprint at least via two consecutive links (link to the homepage and link to the imprint).
However, it is even safer if an imprint is linked directly. Then there really should be no basis for a warning and perhaps an unpopular trial.
