Anterior 54 / 54 Próximo

- 54 - Medicus/Petersen, Bürgerliches Recht, 27. Aufl., Rn. 207; MüKo/Bachmann aaO Rn. 70). Vorliegend folgt aus den bereits begangenen Pflichtverletzungen der Beklagten eine tatsächliche Vermutung für das Vorliegen einer Wiederholungsgefahr (vgl. BGH, Urteile vom 14. November 2017 - VI ZR 534/15, NJOZ 2018, 194 Rn. 17 [zu Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen] und vom 16. Januar 1992 - I ZR 84/90, GRUR 1992, 318, 319 [zu Wettbewerbsverstößen]; jew. mwN). Anhaltspunkte für eine Widerlegung der Vermutung sind weder vorgetragen noch ersichtlich. Herrmann Remmert Kessen Reiter Herr Vorinstanzen: LG Nürnberg-Fürth, Entscheidung vom 14.10.2019 - 11 O 7080/18 OLG Nürnberg, Entscheidung vom 04.08.2020 - 3 U 4039/19 -

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

The Case on Facebook’s Terms of Service

Case Law

Country

Germany

Country Location

Latitud: 51.168768345617636

Longitud: 10.094236493110516

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): Germany

Decision Date: 29 jul 2021

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Reversed Lower Court

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Content Moderation
Content Regulation / Censorship
Social Media

Judicial Body: Supreme (court of final appeal)

Court Name: German Federal Court of Justice

Case Number: III ZR 192/20, III ZR 179/20

Case Summary: The German Federal Court of Justice ruled that Facebook’s terms of service on deleting user posts and blocking accounts for violations of its Community Standards were invalid. Two individuals who had had xenophobic posts deleted by Facebook and their accounts blocked for violating the Community Standards had approached the courts seeking the restitution of their posts and accounts. The lower courts held that the xenophobic elements of the posts constituted hate speech and that Facebook was therefore entitled to take action by removing them. The Federal Court of Justice weighed the conflicting rights of the users’ right to freedom of expression and of Facebook to exercise a profession. The Court concluded that Facebook may reserve the right to remove posts and block the user account in question in the event of a breach of the Community Standards – even if their standards go beyond the requirements of criminal law – but that in order to balance the conflicting basic rights in such a way that they are as effective as possible for both parties, Facebook has to inform the user and grant them an opportunity to respond, followed by a new decision. As Facebook did not provide for these procurement requirements, the terms of service regarding the deletion of user posts and the blocking of user accounts were invalid and Facebook was not entitled to delete the posts and block the accounts.

Case Significance: In its decision, the Court establishes specific procedural requirements for the social network Facebook to moderate its content and so the decision strengthens the right to freedom of expression by vesting users with a right to notification, justification and to response with subsequent redetermination in case of deletion of content or blocking user accounts. The decision clarifies that the moderation of content and the decision on which content is protected under the freedom of expression is not the sole responsibility of Facebook.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw

The Case of Discriminatory Content Against Immigrants

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 jul 2024

Documentos primarios

Judgment of First Individual (German)
German
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

The Case on Facebook’s Terms of Service

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones