Because the social media platform removed offensive content too late, the Frankfurt Regional Court sentenced Twitter to a compensation payment of 6,000 euros to the user concerned.

In addition, the woman has the right to omission and reimbursement of legal fees, as the judges found on Friday.

The platform did not immediately delete the relevant content despite knowledge of its illegality and was therefore jointly responsible for the violation of the privacy of those affected, according to the grounds of the judgment, which the FAZ has received.

Julia Anton

Editor in the Society department at FAZ.NET

  • Follow I follow

The subject of the dispute was several posts that were published on Twitter in early 2019. In the context of a heated political debate, the user concerned was referred to as “scum” and “whore”, among other things. In order to be able to take legal action against the authors of the comments because of insult, she applied a few weeks later to the Berlin Regional Court for information on data such as IP and email addresses of the authors.

There Twitter initially refused the information. The group had provoked the user concerned by a previous "generalizing statement that was obviously not attempting a factual debate (...), Correspondingly drastic, generalized derogatory and undifferentiated reactions". The contested tweets are not insults, but rather "judgmental expressions of opinion about the plaintiff's statements". The Berlin Regional Court, on the other hand, considered the statements to be illegal and the disclosure of the data to the user as justified.

The group initially lodged a complaint against the decision, but later withdrew it and provided information in summer 2020.

The user found that the relevant posts were still available and asked the company to delete the posts.

The Network Enforcement Act, which came into force in September 2017, actually obliges social networks to remove illegal content promptly after knowledge and examination or to block access to it.

Judge: Twitter is complicit

Since the content was initially available, the person concerned took the Berlin consultancy organization HateAid to court. There the judges clearly put the social network in its place. Twitter violated its duty of care. The statements, which the court classified as formal insults or abuse, violated the general right of personality of the plaintiff. Even displeasure with her previous statements did not justify offending the person concerned. Instead, in the opinion of the judges, the platform would have been obliged to delete the posts immediately upon becoming aware of it. However, since this only happened with a significant delay, Twitter was jointly responsible for the personal rights violations.

The Frankfurt judges also went beyond the specific case in their judgment.

The compensation payment should not only compensate for the violations of personal rights suffered by those affected, but also encourage the platform to delete relevant content more quickly in the future as soon as it becomes aware, it said.

There is no danger of so-called overblocking, that is, excessive deletion practices to the detriment of freedom of expression, in the case of “such serious violations of personal rights”.

Instead, without the immediate deletion of hate comments, there is a risk that those affected will no longer express themselves publicly in the future.

"Hate speech can have a significant intimidation effect and even result in violence," write the judges.

"Platforms bear responsibility"

HateAid's Josephine Ballon welcomed the decision. It is a "strong signal for the duties of the platforms and the rights of the users". Ballon particularly emphasized the fundamental nature of the judgment. "It is not an extreme isolated case, Twitter has violated its inspection obligations." It is incomprehensible that the relevant posts were not deleted earlier. The platforms urgently need to create better structures for testing and moderating hate speech, the judgment continues to exert pressure. "We are pleased that we can help shape the legal training at this point by supporting the case," said Ballon.

In an interview with the FAZ, the user concerned also expressed her satisfaction with the judgment.

"This shows that the platforms also bear responsibility and not just provide the infrastructure," she said.

She wants to remain anonymous out of fear of further hostility.

She hopes that the social media platforms will take on more social responsibility in the future.

It remained open on Friday whether Twitter would appeal the judgment.

Neither the group nor the law firm that represented it could be reached in the afternoon for a statement.

The verdict is not yet legally binding.