Précédent 19 / 54 Next

- 19 - Vertragsverhältnis der Parteien einbezogen worden (ebenso in vergleichbaren Konstellationen OLG Dresden, NJW-RR 2020, 1370 Rn. 9 f; OLG Schleswig, GRUR-RS 2020, 8539 Rn. 29 ff; OLG Bamberg, GRUR-RS 2020, 38642 Rn. 34 ff; OLG Karlsruhe, GRUR-RS 2018, 50856 Rn. 10). Dabei kommt es auf die von der Revision erörterte Frage der Wirksamkeit der Änderungsklausel in Nr. 13 der Nutzungsbedingungen in ihrer vorherigen Fassung vom 30. Januar 2015 i.V.m. Nr. 3 der Sonderbedingungen für Deutschland in der Fassung vom 2. Februar 2016 nicht an. Denn die aktualisierten Nutzungsbedingungen sind nicht auf der Grundlage von Nr. 13 der Nutzungsbedingungen in der Fassung vom 30. Januar 2015, sondern vielmehr aufgrund eines zwischen den Parteien geschlossenen Änderungsvertrags i.V.m. § 305 Abs. 2 BGB Vertragsinhalt geworden. 32 Bei den Nutzungsbedingungen und Gemeinschaftsstandards der Beklagten handelt es sich um vorformulierte Vertragsbedingungen und damit um Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen im Sinne der §§ 305 ff BGB (vgl. Senat, Urteil vom 12. Juli 2018 - III ZR 183/17, BGHZ 219, 243 Rn. 25). Änderungen bereits wirksam in den Vertrag einbezogener Allgemeiner Geschäftsbedingungen bedürfen eines Änderungsvertrags unter Beachtung der Voraussetzungen des § 305 Abs. 2 BGB, um Vertragsinhalt zu werden (Senat, Urteil vom 2. Juli 1998 - III ZR 287/97, NJW 1998, 3188, 3189 mwN; BeckOGK/Lehmann-Richter, BGB, § 305 Rn. 264 [Stand: 1. Juni 2021]; MüKo/Basedow, BGB, 8. Aufl., § 305 Rn. 88; Ulmer/Habersack in Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen, AGB-Recht, 12. Aufl., § 305 BGB Rn. 164; Pfeiffer in Wolf/Lindacher/Pfeiffer, AGB-Recht, 7. Aufl., § 305 BGB Rn. 99).

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

The Case on Facebook’s Terms of Service

Case Law

Country

Germany

Country Location

Latitude: 51.168768345617636

Longitude: 10.094236493110516

Country Location (Lié Case Law): Germany

Decision Date: 29 juil. 2021

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Content Moderation
Content Regulation / Censorship
Social Media

Judicial Body: Suprême (cour d'appel de dernière instance)

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.

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 juil. 2024

Documents principaux

Judgment of First Individual (German)
German
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

The Case on Facebook’s Terms of Service

Documents principaux

Notifications