Court case 18 U 2822/19 Pre – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)
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 German court upheld a social network's policy requiring users to use their real names. A user wanted to use a pseudonym but was blocked until they changed it to their real name. This ruling supports platforms enforcing real-name policies.
What happened
The social network blocked a user for using a pseudonym and required them to use their real name to regain access.
Who was affected
The user who was blocked from the social network for not using their real name.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the social network's requirement for users to use their real names did not violate data protection rules.
Why this matters
This decision supports the ability of social networks to enforce real-name policies, emphasizing that users may need to comply with such terms to access services. Website operators should ensure their terms are clear and legally compliant.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The defendant's parent company with its registered office in California operates the social network "www.f...com. For users in Europe, the defendant is the provider and contractual partner. The plaintiff maintains a private user account with the defendant. According to the defendant's current terms of use: "When people stand behind their opinions and actions, our community is safer and more accountable. For this reason, you must do the following: - Use the same name you use in your daily life." The plaintiff had originally given himself the profile name using a pseudonym. In March 2018, the defendant asked the plaintiff to verify his name within the next seven days. The plaintiff was told that after this period, he could not log back in until he updated his name. He was asked the question, "Is ... the name you also use in everyday life?" Under "Your answer", the following alternative was given: "Yes, confirm the name" or "No, change the name". On 23.03.2018, the plaintiff was blocked by the defendant. After he changed his profile name to "...", the block was lifted on the same day. The plaintiff requested the defendant to declare that its terms of use in the scope of the obligation to use a clear name did not apply to the plaintiff. Moreover the plaintoff requested to allow the profile name to be changed to his pseudonym. The defendant did not comply with these requests. The plaintiff has taken the case to court. In its final judgment of 2 May 2019, the Regional Court dismissed the action in its entirety. The plaintiff has appealed. Has the defendant's General Terms and Conditions violated section 13(6) of the German Telemedia Act (TMG) or Article 4(7) GDPR and Artcicle 25(1) GDPR? The Higher Regional Court Munich dismissed the appeal and found that the plaintiff cannot derive a claim to the use of a pseudonym in the context of his own profile from the nature of the contract of use concluded with the defendant. The Court held that the defendant's policy on cl
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 18 U 2822/19 Pre in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 18 U 2822/19 Pre - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: