In the proceedings Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice), hearing scheduled for 27 October 2026 – VI ZR 64/24 (case no.), the VI Civil Senate will hear the parties’ respective appeals on points of law concerning the responsibility of a social network operator from 9:30 a.m. The central issue is what claims individuals may assert when users disseminate false statements of fact about them on the platform. The proceedings have not yet been concluded, and the Bundesgerichtshof has not issued a decision to date.
False Quote Spread via Facebook
Meme Featuring the Claimant’s Image and Name
The claimant is a politician and a member of the German Bundestag. The defendant operates the social network Facebook. A meme was published on the platform that featured an image of the claimant as well as her first and last name, the name of her political party and the statement: “Integration begins with you, as a German, learning Turkish for once.” (translated)
According to the findings made in the proceedings to date, the claimant did not make this statement. The meme spread both through repeated uploads and via the “Share” function. It appeared at various internet addresses and in different formats.
Significance of Supplementary Captions
Some of the published versions included what is known as a caption. This is a heading or text placed above or below the image that users can use to comment on the image or distance themselves from its message. Such distancing may, in particular, involve expressly identifying the purported quote as false.
In the instances identified by the claimant, the supplementary text predominantly contained insults directed at her. Although memes resembling the image first disseminated can be identified automatically, it is not possible to determine solely by automated means whether a particular version conveys the same message and likewise creates the impression that the claimant actually made the statement.
Dispute over Duties to Review and Prevent Further Publication
Removal of Specifically Reported Content
The claimant notified the defendant of the meme first published and eight other versions that she considered to have equivalent meaning. In each case, she provided the specific internet address and demonstrated that the quote used was not attributable to her.
The defendant removed these posts one after another. As they are no longer at issue in the dispute, the proceedings concern broader claims relating to other identical publications or publications with equivalent meaning.
Parties’ Diverging Positions
The claimant takes the position that the defendant must refrain from allowing all memes on Facebook that are identical to or have equivalent meaning to the meme first published until the judgment becomes final. In her view, she is not required to provide the operator with the relevant internet address again for every additional post.
In addition to injunctive relief, she seeks compensation for non-material damage in an amount of at least EUR 10,000. The defendant counters that, as a neutral hosting service provider, it is required to remove only those posts that have been specifically identified. In its view, it has no duty to independently search the platform for further publications infringing personality rights.
The positions advanced in the pending civil proceedings must be distinguished from one another. The Bundesgerichtshof has not yet issued a final ruling on their merits; allegations of criminal conduct are not at issue in the proceedings.
Proceedings to Date
Decisions of the Lower Courts
The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main) upheld the action:
- Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 8 April 2022 – 2-03 O 188/21 (case no.)
- Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main), judgment of 25 January 2024 – 16 U 65/22 (case no.)
On the defendant’s appeal, the Oberlandesgericht dismissed the claim for compensation for non-material damage. However, it upheld the injunction.
By its appeal on points of law, which was admitted by the Oberlandesgericht, the defendant continues to seek dismissal of the action in its entirety. By her cross-appeal on points of law, the claimant seeks reinstatement of the judgment at first instance.
Stay Pending the CJEU’s Decision
The parties and the two lower courts initially based the asserted claims on national law. The relevant provisions were § 1004(1), second sentence, BGB (German Civil Code) and § 823(1) BGB.
The VI Civil Senate advised the parties that claims under Art. 17 and Art. 82 GDPR might also be available. It also raised for discussion the significance of the Digital Services Act, in particular Art. 6(4) and Art. 8 DSA, in assessing the case.
Following the oral hearing on 18 February 2025, the Bundesgerichtshof stayed the proceedings pending the decision of the Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (CJEU, Court of Justice of the European Union) in case C-492/23 (case no.). The CJEU decided that case by judgment of 2 December 2025. The hearing before the Bundesgerichtshof is now set to continue.
Legal Bases for Claims under National and EU Law
Claim for Injunctive Relief under the BGB
§ 1004(1) BGB governs the removal of an interference and, where further interference is imminent, the right to injunctive relief. According to its wording, the provision applies to interference with property, but, in conjunction with § 823(1) BGB, it is also relied upon to protect other absolute rights.
Under § 823(1) BGB, anyone who intentionally or negligently and unlawfully injures another person’s life, body, health, freedom, property or other right is liable in damages. In the present proceedings, it remains unresolved to what extent these provisions apply to the operator of the social network.
Erasure of Personal Data under Art. 17 GDPR
Art. 17(1) GDPR grants data subjects the right, under certain conditions, to request the erasure of their personal data without undue delay. Erasure may be required, among other circumstances, if data has been unlawfully processed or is no longer necessary for the original purpose.
Where a controller has made personal data public and is obliged to erase it, Art. 17(2) GDPR requires the controller, taking account of available technology and implementation costs, to take reasonable steps. These steps are intended to inform other controllers processing the data of the request to erase any links to, copies or replications of that data.
The right to erasure is not unlimited under Art. 17(3) GDPR. Exceptions apply in particular where processing is necessary to exercise the right to freedom of expression and information, comply with legal obligations, or establish, exercise or defend legal claims.
Compensation under Art. 82 GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR provides for a right to compensation for material or non-material damage suffered as a result of an infringement of the General Data Protection Regulation. A controller involved in processing is, in principle, liable for damage caused by processing that does not comply with the GDPR.
By contrast, a processor is liable only under the conditions set out in Art. 82(2) GDPR. Under Art. 82(3) GDPR, controllers or processors are exempt from liability if they prove that they are in no way responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.
Significance of the Digital Services Act
Liability Rules for Hosting Services
Subject to certain conditions, Art. 6(1) DSA limits the liability of providers that store information supplied by users. In particular, this requires the provider to have no actual knowledge of illegal activity or illegal content or, upon obtaining such knowledge, to act expeditiously to disable access to or remove the content.
Art. 6(4) DSA does not affect the authority of courts and administrative authorities to require a service provider, in accordance with the law of a Member State, to terminate or prevent an infringement.
No General Monitoring Obligation
Under Art. 8 DSA, providers of intermediary services may not be subject to a general obligation to monitor all information that they transmit or store. Nor is there any general obligation to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.
The Bundesgerichtshof must therefore determine, among other matters, how this limitation on general monitoring obligations interacts with potential claims for injunctive relief and erasure concerning specific identical content or content with equivalent meaning. It must also determine the significance of data protection rules for the platform operator’s responsibility.
Decision of Significance for Platforms and Affected Individuals
The proceedings concern the relationship between the protection of personality rights, data protection, freedom of expression and the obligations of hosting services. Of particular significance is the distinction between impermissible general monitoring of the platform and potential obligations arising after the provider becomes aware of a specific infringement.
Companies, platform operators and affected individuals may face comparable issues, particularly where personal data is linked to false statements of fact and further disseminated by users. MTR Legal provides assistance in assessing responsibilities under data protection law and potential claims; further information is available under legal advice on data protection law.
