LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-03 O 48/19
|LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-03 O 48/19|
|Court:||LG Frankfurt am Main (Germany)|
|Relevant Law:||Article 16 GDPR|
Article 82 GDPR
§§ 823, 1004 German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - BGB)
Art. 1, 2, 12 Basic Law for the Republik of Germany (Grundgesetz - GG)
|National Case Number/Name:||2-03 O 48/19|
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:DE:LGFFM:2020:0903.2.03O48.19.00|
|Original Source:||Bürgerservice Hessenrecht (in German)|
A Frankfurt court (LG Frankfurt am Main) held that if the operator of a social network restores a user's contribution in response to their complaint, the operator must provide sufficiently serious evidence that unlawful deletion of the user's contribution will not be repeated.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
The defendant blocked the plaintiff's contribution on 25.12.2018 (p. 776 of the annex) with the statement that his contribution did not comply with the F-Community standards. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision and tried to persuade the defendant to lift the block.
On 27.12.2018 the defendant reactivated the contribution - after a re-evaluation of the disputed mail - with the following words: "We are sorry that we misunderstood this. We have re-examined your contribution and confirmed that it meets our Community standards...". However, the blocking of the plaintiff's profile continued.
Dispute[edit | edit source]
Holding[edit | edit source]
The court held that if the operator of a social network deletes a contribution and blocks the user, but restores the contribution in response to the user's complaint, the risk of recurrence is not immediately absent. The operator cannot invoke a "free shot". Instead, the principles developed in the case law on rectification are to be applied to such a constellation.
If the operator restores the contribution in response to the complaint, it must provide sufficiently serious evidence that its (unlawful) conduct will not be repeated. This is not sufficient if the user's block is not also lifted. It could remain open here whether in such a case the operator is at all entitled to block the user immediately after deletion of the contribution.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.