Liability Due to Misleading Metadata

Lawyer  >  IT-Recht  >  Liability Due to Misleading Metadata

Arbeitsrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Steuerrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Home-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Arbeitsrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte

Misleading Search Engine Results – Website Operator Liable

Companies that operate websites naturally want them to be easily found on the internet. Metadata on a website, such as title tags, help enhance its visibility to search engines like Google. However, business owners must consider that search engines might only display the results generated from this metadata in an abbreviated form. This abbreviation could constitute a competitive violation for which the website operator may be held liable. This was demonstrated by a verdict from the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart on August 11, 2023 (Case No.: 2 W 30/23).

A company’s website should be easily found on the internet. To be visible to search engines, the website includes metadata such as a title tag. However, it can happen that search engines like Google might independently abbreviate legally correct metadata, leading to misleading results in organic searches, according to the law firm MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte, which advises on IT law among other areas. This misleading information can constitute a competition violation, making the website operator responsible even if they had correctly formulated the metadata. This is also evidenced by the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart.

Search Engine Shortens Title Tag

The case involved the website of a naturopath who had used the metadata title “Systemic Coach + Psychotherapist (HeilprG)”. This indicates that she offers her services according to the Heilpraktiker Law. Google used the metadata for organic search. However, the search engine abbreviated the details from the title tag, changing “Systemic Coach + Psychotherapist (HeilprG)” to just “Systemic Coach + Psychotherapist” – omitting the suffix “(HeilprG)”.

This seemingly small difference has a significant impact, as the display without the suffix is not permissible for naturopaths. The professional title “Psychotherapist” is protected and can only be used by naturopaths under certain conditions. Thus, the title “Psychotherapist” without the suffix “HeilprG” constitutes a misleading commercial action and a violation of § 5 para. 2 no. 3 UWG (Act against Unfair Competition). The naturopath received a legal warning for this representation, against which she defended herself.

Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart: Website Operator Responsible

The court had to determine whether the website operator was liable for the search-engine-induced abbreviation, even though her own entry in the title tag of the source code was correct.

The website operator is liable, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart clarified. She had adequately caused the misleading search engine entry through her data in the metadata. She should have anticipated that a search engine might generate and display the result from these data in an abbreviated – and as in this case – misleading form.

The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart pointed out that under § 8 para. 1 UWG, anyone who engages in an impermissible commercial action can be held accountable for removal and, in case of a risk of repetition, for prohibition. The right to prohibition exists even if such an infringement is merely imminent.

Judgment Controversial

The ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart is controversial. Critics note that it is difficult for website operators to predict which data search engines will use in organic searches. Thus, data in the metadata like the title tag is not always or only partially used. In this particular case, it was not foreseeable for the naturopath that the search engine would omit the suffix “(HeilprG)”, especially since her legally correct entries remained under the limit of 55 characters, so that a truncation was not technically necessary.

The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart highlights that there is only a fine line between search engine optimization and a violation of competition law with the corresponding legal consequences. Comprehensive legal advice is therefore crucial.

MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte specializes in IT law and competition law and is your competent contact.

Get in contact with us today!

Your first step towards legal clarity!

Book your consultation – choose your preferred appointment online or call us.
International Hotline
now available

book a callback now

or send us a message!