” ## OLG Frankfurt decision on dealing with hate profiles on Facebook\n\nThe Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main addressed in a decision the question of what measures Facebook must take regarding so-called hate profiles. According to reporting by JuraForum (source: https://www.juraforum.de/news/olg-frankfurt-facebook-muss-bei-hassprofilen-ganze-konten-loeschen_266335), the focus is on whether the platform’s response may be limited to removing individual pieces of content or whether further-reaching steps are required.\n\n## Legal starting point: personality rights and platform responsibility\n\n### Balancing conflicting legal positions\nAt its core, the decision concerns the tension between protecting the general right of personality of affected persons and the communicative freedoms within social networks. If content is disseminated via a user account that is aimed at degrading, disparaging, or other unlawful attacks, the question arises as to the scope of the platform operator’s duties to review and act.\n\n### Standard: not only the post, but the profile as the overall source\nAccording to the cited source, the decision starts from the scenario that a user account does not merely publish conspicuous posts on an occasional basis, but that the account, in its overall orientation, is designed to disseminate hateful content. In such a case, the profile as the organizational and technical point of origin of the legal violations comes to the fore.\n\n## Core statement of the decision: deletion of the account instead of mere content removal\n\n### Obligation to completely delete accounts in the case of hate profiles\nAccording to the description in the source report, the OLG Frankfurt clarified that, for an account to be classified as a hate profile, Facebook is not confined to merely removing individual posts. Rather, there may be an obligation to delete the entire user account if the account constitutes the central vehicle for ongoing violations of personality rights.\n\n### Prohibition order and effective prevention of danger\nIn the background is the idea that merely deleting individual postings is not necessarily suitable to prevent further violations of the same kind. What is decisive in this respect is whether continuation of the impairment is to be expected on the basis of the publication practice attributable to the profile and whether a less intrusive approach actually ends the interference.\n\n## Classification of the decision and note on the procedural situation\n\n### No prejudgment – reproduction based on the stated source\nThe above content reproduces the core statements of the stated source. Insofar as unlawful conduct is assumed in connection with “hate profiles,” this is the legal assessment within the framework of the described proceedings. This does not involve any further determination of facts or prejudgment; the presumption of innocence applies insofar as actual allegations against specific persons or account holders are at issue.\n\n## Interfaces with IT law: moderation, account suspensions, and personality rights\n\nThe decision makes clear that conflicts over unlawful content on social media platforms cannot be reduced solely to the removal of individual posts, but may also concern questions of account management, the enforcement of injunction claims, and the technical scope of remedial measures. Anyone seeking a legal classification in the context of digital platforms can find further information at MTR Legal on legal advice in IT law. “
