[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f3s8LP0_3_HL9RbqbYc2aXekW5uVkng6hWfpfAL5KbUE":3},{"article":4,"iocs":47},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":24,"category":25,"article_tags":29},"2d618d71-bbad-48bd-a8a4-69745085e8ed","LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-06 O 234\u002F25","lg-frankfurt-am-main-2-06-o-234-25-008aa3","Facts ← Older revision Revision as of 06:50, 22 September 2026 (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) Line 105: Line 105: The plaintiffs had reported these incidents using the defendant's \"Brand Rights Protection Tool\", reported approximately 256 violations within a month, assigned a full-time employee to monitor the violations, and sent the defendant a formal legal warning. Erasing the infringing content took between 0 and 62 days, and more fake content appeared almost daily. Following the unsuccessful attempts to get the content removed, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction and damages. They based their claims on provisions of copyright law, data protection law, trademark law, and personality rights. The plaintiffs had reported these incidents using the defendant's \"Brand Rights Protection Tool\", reported approximately 256 violations within a month, assigned a full-time employee to monitor the violations, and sent the defendant a formal legal warning. Erasing the infringing content took between 0 and 62 days, and more fake content appeared almost daily. Following the unsuccessful attempts to get the content removed, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction and damages. They based their claims on provisions of copyright law, data protection law, trademark law, and personality rights. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not invoke the liability exemption for hosting providers under Article 6 DSA. They also stated that the co-founder featured in the infringing content could base his claims on Articles 17 and 82 GDPR for the injunction and damages respectively, as the photos and videos featured in the fake content contained the co-founder’s personal data. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was acting as a joint controller within the meaning of [[Article 26 GDPR|Article 26 GDPR]] with the profile owner or advertiser. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not invoke the liability exemption for hosting service providers under [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2022\u002F2065\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 6 DSA]. They also stated that the co-founder featured in the infringing content could base his claims on [[Article 17 GDPR|Articles 17]] and [[Article 82 GDPR|82 GDPR]] for the injunction and damages respectively, as the photos and videos featured in the fake content contained the co-founder’s personal data. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was acting as a joint controller within the meaning of [[Article 26 GDPR]] with the profile owner or advertiser. Line 111: Line 111: The court held that the defendant was liable for fake profiles on its social media platforms under the DSA. It granted the injunction and damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant was liable for fake profiles on its social media platforms under the DSA. It granted the injunction and damages claimed by the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs' claims were already granted on other grounds, the data protection claims further asserted to support the lawsuit were no longer relevant and therefore not assessed by the court in detail. However, the court pointed out that a claim for injunctive relief could not solely be based on [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17 GDPR]] or the GDPR directly. As the plaintiffs' claims were already granted on other grounds, the data protection claims further asserted to support the lawsuit were no longer relevant and therefore not assessed by the court in detail. However, the court pointed out that a claim for injunctive relief could not solely be based on [[Article 17 GDPR]] or the GDPR directly. First, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from publishing and\u002For distributing infringing third-party content on its platforms without the plaintiffs' consent. The court based its decision to grant the injunction on the company's corporate personality rights and corporate trademark as well as the co-founders right to his own image and right to his name. It held that the defendant was directly liable for the infringing content and could not invoke the limitation of liability in Article 6 DSA. First, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from publishing and\u002For distributing infringing third-party content on its platforms without the plaintiffs' consent. The court based its decision to grant the injunction on the company's corporate personality rights and corporate trademark as well as the co-founders right to his own image and right to his name. It held that the defendant was directly liable for the infringing content and could not invoke the liability exemption for hosting service providers in [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2022\u002F2065\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 6 DSA]. Regarding the defendant’s direct liability, the court argued the defendant exercised control over the content and was not just a neutral, passive hosting provider. The court pointed out that the defendant's ranking algorithm makes decisions about which ad is shown to which user and when or whose feed other content than ads appears in. According to the court, this algorithmic dissemination of third-party content therefore serves the defendant's own economic interests. The court referred to the CJEU's decision in the cases the cases C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24 – WebGroup and Coyote System to support its conclusion. In this judgment, the CJEU ruled that an operator exercises control over the algorithmic dissemination of third-party content if the algorithm goes beyond merely categorising and indexing information and determines how the information is disseminated. Regarding the defendant’s direct liability, the court argued the defendant exercised control over the content and was not just a neutral, passive hosting provider. The court pointed out that the defendant's ranking algorithm makes decisions about which ad is shown to which user and when or whose feed other content than ads appears in. According to the court, this algorithmic dissemination of third-party content therefore serves the defendant's own economic interests. The court referred to the CJEU's decision in the cases the cases [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex:62024CJ0188 C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24 – ''WebGroup and Coyote System''] to support its conclusion. In this judgment, the CJEU ruled that an operator exercises control over the algorithmic dissemination of third-party content if the algorithm goes beyond merely categorising and indexing information and determines how the information is broadcast. See [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex:62024CJ0188 CJEU - C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24 - WebGroup and Coyote System], margin numbers 109-112. This decision concerned Article 14(1) E-Commerce Directive 2000\u002F31\u002FEC. The court held the decision was applicable in the present case, as [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Fdir\u002F2000\u002F31\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 14(1) E-Commerce Directive] is the predecessor provision of [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2022\u002F2065\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 6 DSA]. Second, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages they have incurred and\u002For will incur in the future as a result of the dissemination of the infringing content. The court was able to grant damages and monetary compensation because the defendant was liable as the perpetrator, not only as an indirect infringer. Second, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages they have incurred and\u002For will incur in the future as a result of the dissemination of the infringing content. The court was able to grant damages and monetary compensation because the defendant was liable as the perpetrator, not only as an indirect infringer.","A German court has ruled that a social media platform is liable for fake profiles on its services under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The court found the platform exercised control over content dissemination through its algorithms, negating its hosting provider liability exemption. Consequently, the platform was ordered to publish an injunction and compensate plaintiffs for damages.","German court rules social media platform liable for fake profiles under DSA.","Help LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-06 O 234\u002F25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search VisualWikitext Revision as of 06:06, 22 September 2026 view sourceAv (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators188 edits Tag: Decisions [1.0] Latest revision as of 06:50, 22 September 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators188 edits Tag: Visual edit (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)Line 105: Line 105: The plaintiffs had reported these incidents using the defendant's \"Brand Rights Protection Tool\", reported approximately 256 violations within a month, assigned a full-time employee to monitor the violations, and sent the defendant a formal legal warning. Erasing the infringing content took between 0 and 62 days, and more fake content appeared almost daily. Following the unsuccessful attempts to get the content removed, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction and damages. They based their claims on provisions of copyright law, data protection law, trademark law, and personality rights.The plaintiffs had reported these incidents using the defendant's \"Brand Rights Protection Tool\", reported approximately 256 violations within a month, assigned a full-time employee to monitor the violations, and sent the defendant a formal legal warning. Erasing the infringing content took between 0 and 62 days, and more fake content appeared almost daily. Following the unsuccessful attempts to get the content removed, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction and damages. They based their claims on provisions of copyright law, data protection law, trademark law, and personality rights. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not invoke the liability exemption for hosting providers under Article 6 DSA. They also stated that the co-founder featured in the infringing content could base his claims on Articles 17 and 82 GDPR for the injunction and damages respectively, as the photos and videos featured in the fake content contained the co-founder’s personal data. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was acting as a joint controller within the meaning of [[Article 26 GDPR|Article 26 GDPR]] with the profile owner or advertiser.The plaintiffs argued that the defendant could not invoke the liability exemption for hosting service providers under [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2022\u002F2065\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 6 DSA]. They also stated that the co-founder featured in the infringing content could base his claims on [[Article 17 GDPR|Articles 17]] and [[Article 82 GDPR|82 GDPR]] for the injunction and damages respectively, as the photos and videos featured in the fake content contained the co-founder’s personal data. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was acting as a joint controller within the meaning of [[Article 26 GDPR]] with the profile owner or advertiser. Line 111: Line 111: The court held that the defendant was liable for fake profiles on its social media platforms under the DSA. It granted the injunction and damages claimed by the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant was liable for fake profiles on its social media platforms under the DSA. It granted the injunction and damages claimed by the plaintiffs. As the plaintiffs' claims were already granted on other grounds, the data protection claims further asserted to support the lawsuit were no longer relevant and therefore not assessed by the court in detail. However, the court pointed out that a claim for injunctive relief could not solely be based on [[Article 17 GDPR|Article 17 GDPR]] or the GDPR directly.As the plaintiffs' claims were already granted on other grounds, the data protection claims further asserted to support the lawsuit were no longer relevant and therefore not assessed by the court in detail. However, the court pointed out that a claim for injunctive relief could not solely be based on [[Article 17 GDPR]] or the GDPR directly. First, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from publishing and\u002For distributing infringing third-party content on its platforms without the plaintiffs' consent. The court based its decision to grant the injunction on the company's corporate personality rights and corporate trademark as well as the co-founders right to his own image and right to his name. It held that the defendant was directly liable for the infringing content and could not invoke the limitation of liability in Article 6 DSA.First, the court ordered the defendant to refrain from publishing and\u002For distributing infringing third-party content on its platforms without the plaintiffs' consent. The court based its decision to grant the injunction on the company's corporate personality rights and corporate trademark as well as the co-founders right to his own image and right to his name. It held that the defendant was directly liable for the infringing content and could not invoke the liability exemption for hosting service providers in [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2022\u002F2065\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 6 DSA]. Regarding the defendant’s direct liability, the court argued the defendant exercised control over the content and was not just a neutral, passive hosting provider. The court pointed out that the defendant's ranking algorithm makes decisions about which ad is shown to which user and when or whose feed other content than ads appears in. According to the court, this algorithmic dissemination of third-party content therefore serves the defendant's own economic interests. The court referred to the CJEU's decision in the cases the cases C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24 – WebGroup and Coyote System to support its conclusion. In this judgment, the CJEU ruled that an operator exercises control over the algorithmic dissemination of third-party content if the algorithm goes beyond merely categorising and indexing information and determines how the information is disseminated.Regarding the defendant’s direct liability, the court argued the defendant exercised control over the content and was not just a neutral, passive hosting provider. The court pointed out that the defendant's ranking algorithm makes decisions about which ad is shown to which user and when or whose feed other content than ads appears in. According to the court, this algorithmic dissemination of third-party content therefore serves the defendant's own economic interests. The court referred to the CJEU's decision in the cases the cases [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex:62024CJ0188 C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24 – ''WebGroup and Coyote System''] to support its conclusion. In this judgment, the CJEU ruled that an operator exercises control over the algorithmic dissemination of third-party content if the algorithm goes beyond merely categorising and indexing information and determines how the information is broadcast.\u003Cref>See [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Flegal-content\u002FEN\u002FTXT\u002F?uri=celex:62024CJ0188 CJEU - C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24 - WebGroup and Coyote System], margin numbers 109-112. This decision concerned Article 14(1) E-Commerce Directive 2000\u002F31\u002FEC. The court held the decision was applicable in the present case, as [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Fdir\u002F2000\u002F31\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 14(1) E-Commerce Directive] is the predecessor provision of [https:\u002F\u002Feur-lex.europa.eu\u002Feli\u002Freg\u002F2022\u002F2065\u002Foj\u002Feng Article 6 DSA].\u003C\u002Fref> Second, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages they have incurred and\u002For will incur in the future as a result of the dissemination of the infringing content. The court was able to grant damages and monetary compensation because the defendant was liable as the perpetrator, not only as an indirect infringer.Second, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages they have incurred and\u002For will incur in the future as a result of the dissemination of the infringing content. The court was able to grant damages a","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=LG_Frankfurt_am_Main_-_2-06_O_234\u002F25&diff=53129&oldid=53126","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-09-22T06:50:17+00:00","2026-09-22T08:00:11.757944+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"Brand Rights Protection Tool","product",{"name":22,"type":23},"ranking algorithm","technology","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},null,"Policy","policy",[30,35,40,45],{"category":31},{"id":32,"icon":26,"name":33,"slug":34},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","GDPR","gdpr",{"category":36},{"id":37,"icon":26,"name":38,"slug":39},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":41},{"id":42,"icon":26,"name":43,"slug":44},"614132b8-5837-4952-b8b5-c6c9a32a1d85","Privacy","privacy",{"category":46},{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},[]]