Right to Deletion in Case of Defamatory Statements

Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt a.M., Judgment of June 26, 2025 – Ref. 16 U 58/24

Defamatory statements, insults, and targeted online hate are often spread widely through social networks. Content that violates rights may not only affect individual posts – sometimes a user account is primarily used to demean a specific person from the outset. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt a.M. decided in a judgment on June 26, 2025 (Ref. 16 U 58/24) that in such cases, under certain conditions, not only should individual content be removed, but the complete deletion of the account may also be considered.

With this ruling, the OLG specifies the requirements for effective remedial measures by platform operators: If the removal of individual posts is clearly insufficient to prevent ongoing or repeated violations of personal rights, a more comprehensive measure – up to account deletion – may be necessary and proportionate.

Case at Hand: Massive Insults and Disparaging Content

The case was based on a lawsuit by a private individual who had been the target of severe insults and disparaging content on a large social media platform for an extended period. The attacks were carried out through two user accounts that deliberately spread content about the plaintiff. In addition to derogatory insults and demeaning judgments, some posts also included images that made the affected person identifiable to others.

The plaintiff demanded the removal of the unlawful content from the platform operator. Although individual posts were removed, the platform refused a further action – especially the complete deletion of the affected user accounts. The plaintiff sued and was upheld by the OLG Frankfurt.

Decision: Claim May Also Aim at Account Deletion

According to the OLG Frankfurt, a claim for injunction and removal does not necessarily have to be limited only to individual content. A claim can – depending on the circumstances of the individual case – also include the complete deletion of a user account.

This is particularly true when an account is predominantly or even exclusively used, by its overall orientation and actual use, to spread unlawful content, especially defamatory statements about a particular person. In such a situation, account deletion may be necessary to effectively prevent continued violations of rights.

Why Deleting Individual Posts Is Not Always Enough

The court emphasized that freedom of expression is a valuable asset and can include harsh, exaggerated, or polemical criticism. However, it finds its limits where statements shift into pure disparagement (defamatory criticism) or violate human dignity or general personal rights. Particularly significant is a targeted, repeated public disparagement of a person.

For platform operators, it is also crucial that the measures taken must be suitable to prevent further similar violations of rights. Simply deleting individual posts may be insufficient if, from the overall picture, it appears that a user account is systematically used to spread unlawful content. In this case, complete account deletion may be an appropriate and proportionate means.

Examination and Action Duties of Platform Operators

Legally, claims against platforms in Germany typically fall within the framework of injunction and removal claims in cases of personality rights violations. Platform operators can be held liable from the point they become aware of a clear violation of rights and do not respond appropriately. They are then subject to examination and action duties: They must adequately review the notification and provide effective remedy if a violation of rights is present.

The practical effectiveness is crucial here: If the issue is not an isolated incident, but rather a typical account-recurring violation pattern, merely removing individual posts may not sufficiently reduce the risk of future violations.

It should also be noted that platforms must act in accordance with the requirements of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and their own reporting and complaint procedures. The DSA establishes diligence and transparency obligations across Europe, without automatically deciding every individual case; for those affected, it remains essential to submit substantiated notifications and clearly document the violation of rights.

Blocking vs. Deletion: When the Final Measure May Be Necessary

The OLG Frankfurt emphasized the distinction between a temporary suspension and a permanent deletion of an account. A temporary suspension may not be sufficient in individual cases if it is expected that the user will continue unlawful activities once the suspension is lifted.

A permanent deletion may be particularly appropriate if there is structural misuse of the account and there are no sufficient indications that lawful use can be expected in the future. The principle of proportionality remains decisive: The measure must be suitable, necessary, and reasonable to prevent violations of rights.

Practical Tips for Affected Individuals: How to Increase Chances of Success

• Secure Content: Document screenshots, URLs, timestamps, profile names, possibly video/image files, and context (threads, comments).
• Substantiated Notification to the Platform: Specifically state why a statement is unlawful (e.g., insult, defamation, identifiability through photos).
• Show Patterns of Recurrence: If an account repeatedly targets the same person, the overall picture is decisive.
• Document Deadlines and Platform Reactions: Note when reports were made, how the platform responded, which posts reappeared afterwards.
• Examine Further Legal Avenues: In addition to claims against the platform, depending on the case, claims for injunctions against the author, information claims (under strict conditions), and criminal proceedings may be considered.

Conclusion: Strengthening personal rights protection in systematic online harassment

The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main strengthens personal rights protection in the digital space. Under certain conditions, affected individuals can not only demand the removal of individual unlawful posts but also the deletion of a user account if it is primarily used to defame a person. For platform operators, this means increased requirements for the effectiveness of their measures: not only reacting but also preventing further similar violations in an appropriate manner.

Note: This article serves for general informational purposes and does not constitute individual legal advice. Whether a claim for account deletion exists in a specific individual case depends on content, context, frequency, reach, and the overall picture of usage.

If you wish, I can also revise the article into a search engine optimized version (with Meta-Title/Meta-Description, FAQ, and subheadings according to common SEO standards).