- A platform operator is only liable in the event of specific complaints from affected parties.
- The plaintiff is the anti-Semitism commissioner in Baden-Württemberg.
- The defendant operates the platform "X", formerly Twitter.
- The OLG dismissed the application for injunctive relief for lack of sufficient objections.
- The defendant is only liable after becoming aware of infringements.
- The lawyer's letter did not contain sufficient knowledge of the facts.
- The decision is not contestable and was made by the OLG.
A platform operator is only liable for infringing content from users of the platform if the complaints of a data subject – which may be correct or incorrect – are so specific that the infringement can be easily confirmed on the basis of the data subject’s allegation. In a decision announced today, the Press Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (OLG) rejected claims for injunctive relief due to a lack of sufficiently specific complaints.
The plaintiff is the anti-Semitism commissioner in Baden-Württemberg. The defendant operates the platform “X”, formerly known as Twitter.
The plaintiff notified the defendant in a lawyer’s letter of a large number of tweets with what he considered to be infringing content and requested removal and injunctive relief. As a result, the defendant deleted the account of a user who had published six of the offending tweets.
In response to the plaintiff’s urgent application, the Regional Court ordered the defendant to refrain from disseminating five more detailed statements about the plaintiff made by the user.
On appeal by the defendant, the OLG dismissed the application for injunctive relief. In support of its decision, it stated that the defendant could not be held liable here in accordance with the principles of the highest court on provider liability.
The defendant merely provides a platform for statements by third parties. As a provider, it is therefore only liable for any infringing content after becoming aware of it.
A data subject must first confront them with complaints, which must be so specific that the infringement can be easily confirmed on the basis of the data subject’s allegations. Only then is the provider obliged to further investigate and evaluate the reported facts.
In the present case, the lawyer’s letter did not provide the defendant with sufficient knowledge of the facts from which it was able to recognize an infringement without a detailed legal or factual examination.
Without any justification or description of the facts, there was only talk of “illegal content”. The tweets complained of alone did not show that the plaintiff was against the dissemination of constructed facts of life that lacked a factual basis or against facts that could not be proven to be true. This was also not inherent in the tweets and was therefore clear to the defendant.
The fact that the defendant ultimately blocked the user’s entire account – and not just deleted the displayed tweets – shows that the infringement was not easily recognizable for the defendant.
The plaintiff also argues unsuccessfully that the notification form provided by the defendant does not provide a text field for further specific individual details. The notification form complies with the requirements of the NetzDG and is therefore primarily intended to check for criminal content. In addition, more detailed information would have been possible both in the “Content” column and in an appendix.
The decision issued in summary proceedings is not contestable.
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)
