Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, 13.08.2013, Ref.: I-20 U 75/13
Please note: The TMG (Telemedia Act) has been replaced by the DDG (Digital Services Act). However, the decision is likely still relevant in content. You can find an overview here. Please note: The TMG has been replaced by the DDG, but the decision likely remains relevant. An overview can be found here.
Many companies often overlook that their profile on social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, or Xing must not only look appealing but also comply with the requirements of the Telemedia Act (TMG).
The applicability of the imprint obligation for social media platforms has also been confirmed by courts multiple times. According to the Telemedia Act, the imprint must be “easily recognizable, directly accessible, and permanently available.”
In the aforementioned judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, the court had to address whether a link to the imprint of a website, which was placed on the “Info” page of the company’s Facebook profile, complied with the requirements of the Telemedia Act.
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Facts of the Case:
Dispute between locksmith companies over imprint information on Facebook
In this case, two locksmith companies disputed the imprint details on a Facebook page. Both parties offered their services nationwide via the internet. The respondent, in addition to his company website, also operated a Facebook page under the name „Schlüsseldienst R.“, but it did not contain a direct imprint. Instead, there was a link to the „Info“ page of his website, where the imprint was located. Additionally, the website explicitly excluded any liability for other sites.
Plaintiff’s View: Link to the Imprint is Insufficient
The plaintiff argued that merely linking to the imprint was not sufficient. He therefore applied for a preliminary injunction to compel the respondent to make the legally required information, according to § 5 TMG, easily recognizable and directly accessible on Facebook. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the link was sufficient.
District Court’s Decision and Appeal
The District Court dismissed the application on the grounds that it was too vague. The plaintiff then appealed to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Düsseldorf.
Judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf:
Application justified and permissible
The OLG Düsseldorf sided with the plaintiff. It determined that the respondent had violated the provisions of § 5 TMG and § 4 No. 11 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG), as the required information on the Facebook page was neither easily recognizable nor directly accessible. The information obligations under § 5 TMG served consumer protection and transparency in business dealings.
Link to Website Imprint on Facebook Insufficient
The court ruled that social media profiles like Facebook also require their own provider identification if they are used for commercial purposes. In this case, the respondent’s Facebook profile was undoubtedly operated for commercial purposes. The provider identification was only accessible via the “Info” button, which the court deemed insufficient. The term “Info” does not clearly indicate to the user that provider information can be found there.
The necessary information, such as the company’s identity, address, and authorized representative, must be clearly and unambiguously recognizable. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, terms like “Contact” or “Imprint” would be more appropriate, as they clearly inform the user where to find the required information.
„Info“ as a Term is Insufficient
The term “Info” covers a wide range of potential content and does not provide clear orientation for the user. The user would need to click on the „Info“ button, then on another “Contact” button, and finally be redirected to the company website, where they would need to click another “Imprint” button to access the required information. According to the court, this is insufficient.
Although the Federal Court of Justice ruled in another case that it does not matter if the user needs to take two steps to access the information, it remains questionable whether a third step can be considered a “long search.” However, this was not decisive in this case.
Different Company Names on Facebook and Website
Another issue was that the respondent’s Facebook profile was operated under a different company name than the company’s website. Additionally, the website did not make it clear that the imprint also applied to the Facebook account. This further affected the required easy recognizability and direct accessibility of the information.
Source: Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Note: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, the complexity and ever-changing nature of the subject matter make it necessary to exclude liability and warranty. This article cannot replace legal advice.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Attorneys in Cologne provide advice and representation in internet law.
One Response