Facebook is allowed to delete posts with misinformation about the effectiveness and dangers of the corona vaccination.
The terms of use authorize Facebook to delete posts containing “false news,” including “misinformation about vaccines.” The prerequisite is that the information is, in the opinion of expert health authorities or leading health organizations, incorrect and likely to contribute to vaccine refusal. Furthermore, they may not represent any factual criticism of the current state of knowledge
With this reason, the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court rejected the appeal of a Facebook user requesting that the deleted post be reactivated.
The plaintiff posted a post about the effectiveness and dangers of vaccines against Covid-19 viruses on the Facebook platform operated by the defendant. According to his own statements, he took this article from a “conspiracy ideological channel”. The defendant deleted this post and informed the plaintiff accordingly. The plaintiff’s objection to this was unsuccessful.
With his lawsuit, he applied to the Frankfurt am Main regional court, among other things, for this article to be re-activated. This request was unsuccessful neither before the regional court nor in the appeal before the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court:
According to the Higher Regional Court, the plaintiff has no right to have the defendant reactivate the post, stated the responsible press senate. The defendant did undertake to make its products and services available to the plaintiff as part of the user agreement. She is therefore not allowed to delete the plaintiff’s posts without reason. However, the article in dispute here violated the regulations included in the new terms of use in the Community standards on “false reports”, including “misinformation about vaccines”. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to remove posts if the health authorities have concluded that the information is false and likely to contribute to vaccination refusal. It is not necessary that it be scientifically established with “absolute certainty” that these are untrue facts. Here, the defendant demonstrated that three statements contained in the post were such misinformation:
The defendant refuted the claim in the article that the Covid-19 vaccines did not “work” according to “studies published by the British government and the University of Oxford” with numerous studies to the contrary. The defendant made the further claim that according to an “internal document from the medical association” there was a warning about the “deadly side effects after the booster” and that “the most serious side effects” occurred, among other things, by presenting the information sheet from the Federal Ministry of Health on the safety of Covid-19. 19 vaccines also refuted. It cannot be established that – as the plaintiff claims – the Federal Minister of Health now admits a significant number of vaccine injuries. In particular, no studies have proven a causal connection between Covid-19 vaccinations and long/post-Covid-like symptoms. Finally, the defendant refuted the claim that an “international team of scientists” had determined the presence of “toxins and graphene oxides” in vaccines by referring to a research text from correktiv.org on the absence of “graphene oxides”. This journalistic text quotes information from the press spokesperson for the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the press spokesperson for the European Medicines Agency. The plaintiff did not object to this.
The regulations also withstood a content check with the necessary balancing of the users’ freedom of expression on the one hand and the defendant’s professional freedom on the other. There is an objective reason for the ban on misinformation that is relevant here. The defendant represents a legitimate public interest. The regulation does not prohibit the plaintiff from expressing a particular political view. The ban only applies to statements of fact, not to political opinions. A factual criticism of corona 19 virus vaccinations would also not be covered by the deletion.
Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court, judgment of November 14, 2024 – 16 U 52/23
