Published Posts and Their Timeliness – Legal Limits on Deletion and Obligation to Add Updates
The dynamics of information on the internet raise numerous questions, especially regarding legal publications on law firm websites. This concerns not only clients but also individuals or companies featured in the reports. A recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main (Case No. 16 U 255/21, published on 01.02.2023; Source: urteile.news) clarifies the legal requirements for disclosure obligations and possible claims for removal or additions to posts that have lost their topical relevance.
Initial Situation: Published Decision Loses Timeliness
In the underlying case, a law firm published a report on its website about a public prosecutor’s investigation and an opening order against an individual. The publication was based on the official procedures available at the time of publication. Later, the respective procedure was discontinued—but this information was neither updated nor supplemented on the site.
The affected individual then contacted the publishing law firm, requesting deletion of the post or at least a clarifying note about the later discontinuation of the investigation.
Central Legal Questions: Claim for Deletion vs. Claim for Supplement
Claim for Deletion
The OLG Frankfurt am Main rejected the claim for complete deletion of the report. The decisive factor was that the report was accurate at the time of publication and based on publicly accessible information. Regarding the legality of the publication, it is crucial that the report corresponded to the state of the investigation at that time and did not violate personal rights of the affected individuals. The mere fact that the post no longer reflected the current situation later does not alone justify a claim for retroactive deletion.
Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of freedom of opinion and information, which in principle also includes the publication of lawful, historically related facts. The decision clarifies that a subsequent development—here, the discontinuation of the procedure—does not automatically oblige one to retroactively undo previously lawfully published content.
Claim for Supplement
The court further examined whether at least a claim for a subsequent addition—such as a clarifying note about the now discontinued investigation—exists. The OLG referred to the fact that such a claim generally only applies in cases of continuing significant disadvantages or a risk of misleading the public. In the present case, the court found no indication that the absence of an addition would result in noticeable legal violations.
The court also argued that readers can be expected to recognize the temporal context of older reports. An obligation to update or add retroactively based on a general personality right was therefore rejected, unless there are apparent reputational damages or actual impacts on the protected interests of the affected person.
Evaluation Standard: Recognized Press Principles on Law Firm Websites
Relevance for Law Firms and Information Providers
The ruling differentiates between the obligation of classic media to issue an addendum or correction in case of significant developments and the publication of legal information on a law firm homepage or similar information pages. Although a duty to update can fundamentally arise for such information offerings, this requires a continuing risk to reputation or false factual claims.
In the underlying case, the court did not find such a risk, as the post accurately reflected the facts at the time of publication and was not linked to ongoing stigmatizing or defamatory statements.
Protection of Personality Rights – Balancing with Freedom of Opinion
Personality rights protect against untrue or defamatory reports, especially when they are capable of sustainably damaging a person’s public image. The rights of affected persons must always be balanced against the information provider’s right to freedom of opinion and press freedom. Since the post was accurate at the time of publication, the court considered that the protected interests of the affected person were not subsequently affected in a manner that would have necessitated intervention.
Significance for Publications on Lawyers’ Websites
The ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main provides, in particular, operators of law firm websites and comparable information platforms with a certain degree of legal certainty regarding the publication of past events. As long as contributions reflect the truthful state of affairs at the time and do not present any ongoing, concrete reputational risk for the affected person, there is neither a deletion claim nor a binding right to a follow-up statement.
Nevertheless, when publishing or maintaining older posts, it is advisable to carefully weigh the context, subject matter, and potential impacts on personality rights against each other. In individual cases, special circumstances—such as extraordinary media impact or demonstrable harm to the affected person—may, depending on the situation, establish further obligations.
For companies, businesses, investors, or individuals confronted with similar issues in the context of online publications, numerous subsequent questions regarding the legal permissibility and limits of publication may arise. The lawyers at MTR Legal offer advice on all aspects of media, personality, and freedom of expression law and are happy to provide case-specific clarification.
