Court case 2-03 O 48/19 – 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 social media platforms must provide clear evidence that they won't repeat unlawful actions if they restore a user's content after blocking it. This case highlights the importance of transparency and accountability for online platforms when managing user content. The decision emphasizes that simply restoring content isn't enough if the user's profile remains blocked.
What happened
A German court ruled that a social network must show evidence it won't repeat unlawful behavior when restoring blocked content.
Who was affected
Users of social networks whose contributions were blocked and then restored by the platform.
What the authority found
The court decided that restoring a user's content requires the platform to prove it won't repeat the unlawful action, even if the user's profile remains blocked.
Why this matters
This ruling stresses the need for social media platforms to be transparent and accountable when managing user content. It sets a precedent that platforms must provide evidence of corrective measures, not just restore content, to avoid future legal issues.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The defendant blocked the plaintiff's contribution on 25.12.2018 (p. 776 of the annex) with the statement that his contribution did not comply with the F-Community standards. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision and tried to persuade the defendant to lift the block. On 27.12.2018 the defendant reactivated the contribution - after a re-evaluation of the disputed mail - with the following words: "We are sorry that we misunderstood this. We have re-examined your contribution and confirmed that it meets our Community standards...". However, the blocking of the plaintiff's profile continued. The plaintiff asks whether the defendant's terms of use for deleting so-called hate messages are invalid. Furthermore, it is questioned whether the Community standards of spring 2018 had become part of the contract. In this respect, the defendant might rely on the amendment clause in clause 13 of the previous terms and conditions, as it violates § 307 (1) sentence 1 BGB or § 308 no. 5 BGB if the forced consent to the amendment of the terms of use was immoral. The court held that if the operator of a social network deletes a contribution and blocks the user, but restores the contribution in response to the user's complaint, the risk of recurrence is not immediately absent. The operator cannot invoke a "free shot". Instead, the principles developed in the case law on rectification are to be applied to such a constellation. If the operator restores the contribution in response to the complaint, it must provide sufficiently serious evidence that its (unlawful) conduct will not be repeated. This is not sufficient if the user's block is not also lifted. It could remain open here whether in such a case the operator is at all entitled to block the user immediately after deletion of the contribution.
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 48/19 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 48/19 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: