[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fInZNrtv88Za-FQ9kD7v6OVtdigiGl-I9w0MgjWg7I08":3},{"article":4,"iocs":49},{"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":26,"category":27,"article_tags":31},"cd5c8575-38b9-464b-97dc-9a03820a3212","LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-06 O 234\u002F25","lg-frankfurt-am-main-2-06-o-234-25-caf197","Created page with \"{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=LG Frankfurt am Main |Court_Original_Name=Landgericht Frankfurt am Main |Court_English_Name=Regional Court Frankfurt am Main |Court_With_Country=LG Frankfurt am Main (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=2-06 O 234\u002F25 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=REWIS |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Frewis.io\u002Furteile\u002Furteil\u002Fjfa-16-09-2026-2-06-o-23425\u002F |Original_Source_Language_1=German...\" Show changes","A German court has ruled that a social media platform operator is liable for content posted by fake accounts, citing violations of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The court granted an injunction and damages to the plaintiffs, a financial education company and its co-founder, who had repeatedly requested the removal of infringing content. The court determined the platform exercised control over the content's dissemination through its algorithms, thus negating liability exemptions for hosting providers.","German court finds social media platform liable for fake account content under DSA.","Help LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-06 O 234\u002F25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 06:06, 22 September 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators186 edits Tag: Decisions [1.0]Newer edit → (No difference) Revision as of 06:06, 22 September 2026 LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-06 O 234\u002F25 Court: LG Frankfurt am Main (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6 Regulation (EU) 2022\u002F2065 Decided: 16.09.2026 Published: 21.09.2026 Parties: Meta Finanzfluss Thomas Kehl National Case Number\u002FName: 2-06 O 234\u002F25 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: Appeal to: Unknown Original Language(s): German Original Source: REWIS (in German) Initial Contributor: av A court held that a social media platform operator was liable for content posted by fake accounts under the DSA and granted the plaintiffs an injunction and damages. The operator exercised control over the content, as its algorithm determines how the content is disseminated. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts A company operating a financial education portal and a YouTube channel with about 1,5 million subscribers and one of its co-founders (the plaintiffs) had repeatedly requested the operator of two large social media platforms (the defendant) to erase content posted by fake accounts. Users not associated with the plaintiffs had created profiles and posted advertisements under names resembling the plaintiffs' trade marks as well as featuring photos and deepfake videos of the co-founder. If users of the social media platforms followed the links in the posts, they were directed to groups on the defendant’s messaging app where fraudulent investment options were promoted. 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 with the profile owner or advertiser. Holding 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 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. 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. 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. Finally, the court ordered to defendant to provide the plaintiffs information on the extent to which infringing content was distributed, accessed, or made publicly available. The defendant was also obligated to provide a breakdown of the revenue generated by the dissemination of fake content. Comment Share your comments here! Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, Judgement of September 16, 2026, Case No. 2-06 O 234\u002F25 6th Civil Chamber | REWIS RS 2026, 8634 Financial Flow: Liability for Fake Profiles—On the liability of a social media platform operator for fake profiles in the context of algorithmically determined content display, in accordance with the CJEU rulings in Webgroup and Coyote (C-188\u002F24, C-190\u002F24). Operative Part The defendant is ordered, on pain of a fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 to be determined by the Court for each instance of noncompliance, and, in the event that such fine cannot be collected, to serve a term of detention or a term of detention of up to six months, which shall be enforced against its legal representatives, to refrain, with respect to Plaintiff No. 1, from publishing and\u002For distributing third-party content on its platforms A and\u002For B without the consent of Plaintiff No. 1, and\u002For from causing third parties to perform such acts, where contain images in which Plaintiff No. 2 is depicted, even though such content does not originate from Plaintiff No. 1, if this occurs as evident from Exhibits K22, K24, K28, K29, and K33; and\u002For contain the mark “F” verbatim or in a modified form, even though this content does not originate from Plaintiff No. 1, if this occurs as evident from Exhibits K24, K28, K29, and K33. The defendant is ordered, on pain of a fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 to be determined by the Court for each instance of infringement, and, in the event that such fine cannot be collected, to serve a term of detention or a term of detention of up to six months, to be enforced against its legal representatives, to refrain, with respect to Plaintiff No. 2, from publishing and\u002For distributing third-party content on its platforms A and\u002For B without the consent of Plaintiff No. 2, and\u002For from having such actions performed by third parties that feature images of Plaintiff No. 2, even though such content does not originate from Plaintiff No. 2 in the lawsuit, if this occurs as evident from Exhibits K22, 24, 26, 28–31, and 33; and\u002For contain, verbatim or in essence, the name “[Plaintiff No. 2]” even though such content does not originate","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=LG_Frankfurt_am_Main_-_2-06_O_234\u002F25&diff=53126&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-09-22T06:06:32+00:00","2026-09-22T06:12:09.376943+00:00",8,[18,21,23],{"name":19,"type":20},"messaging app","product",{"name":22,"type":20},"social media platforms",{"name":24,"type":25},"Meta","vendor","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":26,"icon":28,"name":29,"slug":30},null,"Policy","policy",[32,37,42,44],{"category":33},{"id":34,"icon":28,"name":35,"slug":36},"233dac9c-6b5b-4d83-9d6b-902ec3ffd7f2","DSA\u002FDMA","dsa-dma",{"category":38},{"id":39,"icon":28,"name":40,"slug":41},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","GDPR","gdpr",{"category":43},{"id":26,"icon":28,"name":29,"slug":30},{"category":45},{"id":46,"icon":28,"name":47,"slug":48},"d95477d7-eb04-4fad-a2dc-be1428040ce7","Privacy Fines","privacy-fines",[]]