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, false and likely to contribute to vaccine refusal. Furthermore, they may not represent any factual criticism of the current state of knowledge.
The situation:
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 had taken 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 requested, among other things, that this post be reactivated.
The LG dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s appeal was unsuccessful before the Higher Regional Court. The decision is not final. With the non-admission complaint, approval of the appeal before the BGH can be requested.
The reasons:
The plaintiff has no right to have the defendant reactivate his contribution.
The defendant has committed itself to making its products and services available to the plaintiff as part of the user agreement. For this reason, she may not 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 vaccination openness”. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to remove posts if health authorities have concluded that the information is false and likely to contribute to vaccine refusal. It is not necessary that it be scientifically established with “absolute certainty” that these are untrue facts.
In the present case, the defendant has proven that three statements contained in the post were such misinformation. The defendant has refuted the claim contained 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” occur, 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 withstand a content control when the necessary balancing of the users’ freedom of expression on the one hand and the defendant’s professional freedom on the other hand is carried out. 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 applies only to statements of fact, not to political opinions. A factual criticism of corona 19 virus vaccinations would also not be covered by the deletion.
More on the topic:
Short article
OLG Frankfurt: Audit obligations of a social media platform
Vilma Niclas / German von Blumenthal, ITRB 2024, 57
ITRB0064553
IT law advisory module
The perfect online equipment for IT law: Always up to date with the contents of all editions of Computer and Law and IT Legal Advisor as well as updates from Redeker, Handbook of IT Contracts. Watch the informative review and application video by RA Michael Rohrlich and Marc Oliver Thoma here! Edit numerous proven forms with LAWLIFT! Use 4 weeks for free!
