Court case 15 U 340/25 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2026)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A rapper (the data subject) requested the operators of a search engine (the defendants) to delist a search result in March 2022. When the data subject’s name and the word “Nazi” were entered in the search engine, the search results referred to an article about a person who was allegedly deeply involved in the neo-Nazi scene. The article contained a picture that suggested this person had managed the sales booth for the data subject’s fashion label at an event. The defendants refused to remove the search result. Following this, the data subject filed an action for injunctive relief requesting the search result to be delisted. The defendants blocked the search results after a witness had stated in a hearing before the court of first instance that the person mentioned in the article had nothing to do with managing the data subject’s sales booth. The court of first instance granted the injunction under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. It held that the processing had been unlawful as the statement about the defendant having a business relationship with a person involved in neo-Nazi circles was found to be untrue. The defendants appealed this decision to the Higher Regional Court of Cologne. The data subject also appealed the decision as they found the court had wrongly limited the claim for injunctive relief to German territory. The court granted the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the data subject’s appeal. It held that the data subject had no right to an injunction under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. According to the court, a legally enforceable claim for erasure and supplementary injunctive relief against a search engine operator to have a search result delisted exists only if the search engine operator has violated its duty to review the content based on a request from the data subject. Otherwise, the search engine operator is not liable for the display of search results that refer to unlawful content. In the present case, the
Source checks
Source retrieval not recorded.
No automated check recorded.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
A rapper (the data subject) requested the operators of a search engine (the defendants) to delist a search result in March 2022. When the data subject’s name and the word “Nazi” were entered in the search engine, the search results referred to an article about a person who was allegedly deeply involved in the neo-Nazi scene. The article contained a picture that suggested this person had managed the sales booth for the data subject’s fashion label at an event. The defendants refused to remove the search result. Following this, the data subject filed an action for injunctive relief requesting the search result to be delisted. The defendants blocked the search results after a witness had stated in a hearing before the court of first instance that the person mentioned in the article had nothing to do with managing the data subject’s sales booth. The court of first instance granted the injunction under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. It held that the processing had been unlawful as the statement about the defendant having a business relationship with a person involved in neo-Nazi circles was found to be untrue. The defendants appealed this decision to the Higher Regional Court of Cologne. The data subject also appealed the decision as they found the court had wrongly limited the claim for injunctive relief to German territory. The court granted the defendants’ appeal and dismissed the data subject’s appeal. It held that the data subject had no right to an injunction under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. According to the court, a legally enforceable claim for erasure and supplementary injunctive relief against a search engine operator to have a search result delisted exists only if the search engine operator has violated its duty to review the content based on a request from the data subject. Otherwise, the search engine operator is not liable for the display of search results that refer to unlawful content. In the present case, the
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 15 U 340/25 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 15 U 340/25 - Germany (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: