Court case 2-03 O 282/19 – 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 ruled that a social media platform could require users to verify their identity to maintain an account. This decision matters because it clarifies that platforms can ask for identity verification under their terms, impacting how users engage with online services. Users should be aware that anonymity might not always be possible on such platforms.
What happened
A court ruled that a social media platform could require users to verify their identity to maintain an account.
Who was affected
Users of the social media platform who are required to verify their identity as part of the platform's terms.
What the authority found
The court found that the platform had the right to require identity verification and terminate accounts if users did not comply.
Why this matters
This ruling underscores the balance between user anonymity and platform security, indicating that platforms can enforce identity checks under their terms, which could influence user privacy expectations.
National Law Articles
The defendant operates social media website (the Platform). According to the terms and conditions of the defendant, the use of the Platform is based on a one-time registration with valid identification. The plaintiff registered as a user of the Platform. The defendant transferred the plaintiff's account to account verification proceedings and requested the plaintiff to confirm the authenticity of his account by presenting a copy of his ID or picture, or by entering a confirmation code from one of his devices. The plaintiff did not answer the defendant's request. This is why the defendant blocked and deleted the account without giving any further reasons. Thereafter, the plaintiff tried to contact the defendant to restore his account, but did not succeed. Can the plaintiff claim to be able to enter into a contract with the defendant without verification of his identity according to the defendant's terms of use? Can the plaintiff maintain anonymity on the Internet according to section 13 (6) TMG, which provides for the anonymous use of telemedia services? Is section 13 (6) of the German Telemedia Act (Telemediengesetz - TMG) inapplicable now that the GDPR has become applicable? The court found that the defendant had a right to extraordinary termination because the plaintiff violated his obligations according to the terms of user conditions of the Platform. Specifically, the defendant does not know the plaintiff personally and concludes contracts with him only via the Internet. This is why the defendants may obtain knowledge of the identity of its contractual partner. However, the plaintiff is also free to not use the defendant´s service. The court concluded that the plaintiff has the right to register under a different name or to register in accordance with section 13 (6) of the German Telemedia Act under a pseudonym, and the defendant did not require the plaintiff to designate his profile with his own name, but only to disclose it to the defendant. Section
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 2-03 O 282/19 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2-03 O 282/19 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: