Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

Court case 18 U 2822/19 Pre – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA LGTraunstein8 December 2020Germany
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A German court ruled on a case where a social media platform blocked a user for not using their real name. This is important because it raises questions about user rights and privacy on social media. Companies should be transparent about their policies and how they affect users.

What happened

A user was blocked from a social media platform for using a pseudonym instead of their real name.

Who was affected

The user who was blocked from accessing their account.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the platform's terms of service did not violate data protection laws regarding the use of a pseudonym.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights the balance between platform policies and user rights, prompting companies to consider how their rules affect user privacy.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 4 GDPR
Art. 7 GDPR
Art. 25(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(GDPR)
Art. 7(GDPR)
Art. 25(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 3 (7) BDSG
§ 1 (5) BDSG
§ 13 (6) TMG
Art. 5 (1)(1) GG
Decision AuthorityOLG München
Reviewed AuthorityLG Traunstein (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 20 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected, date discrepancy.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

Ruling Date

8 December 2020

Authority

DPA LGTraunstein

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 18 U 2822/19 Pre - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: