RulingsThe following sites contain a selection of court rulings or their key points grouped according to the area of law that they deal with. Apart from the key points, there are also statements of the facts of the cases and comments on the rulings. Comments reflect our opinion and cannot claim to be complete. Please note that each ruling is based on a particular and individual case. Therefore, it is neither possible nor sensible to make generalisations. Rather, it is recommended to have the facts of individual cases revised by an attorney-at-law. German Case Law in Online Law (Onlinerecht)German case law (Rechtsprechung) in online law (Onlinerecht) has developed significantly due to the rise of e-commerce, social media, GDPR enforcement, and digital transactions. Below are some landmark rulings, each with its case reference number (Aktenzeichen - Az.), facts (Sachverhalt), and outcome (Ausgang des Verfahrens).
1. Data Protection & GDPR Cases1.1. Google Fonts & IP Address Collection- Case: LG München I, Az. 3 O 17493/20
- Facts: A website used Google Fonts without user consent, transmitting IP addresses to Google.
- Outcome: The court ruled that IP addresses are personal data, and the website operator must obtain user consent before loading external fonts. The claimant was awarded €100 in damages per violation.
1.2. Right to Be Forgotten (Google Spain Ruling Applied in Germany)- Case: BGH, Az. VI ZR 405/18
- Facts: A person requested Google to remove outdated and defamatory articles about them.
- Outcome: The BGH applied the CJEU "Google Spain" ruling, stating that search engines must balance privacy rights and public interest. Google was forced to delist certain URLs.
1.3. Facebook’s Real Name Policy- Case: BGH, Az. III ZR 196/17
- Facts: A Facebook user wanted to register under a pseudonym, but Facebook required real names.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that users must be allowed to use pseudonyms, as forcing real names violates data protection rights.
1.4. Cookie Consent & Tracking- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 7/16 ("Planet49 Case")
- Facts: A website used pre-ticked boxes for cookie consent in an online lottery.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that pre-ticked boxes do not constitute valid consent under the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive.
2. E-Commerce & Consumer Protection Cases2.1. "Button Solution" (Zahlungspflichtig Bestellen Requirement)- Case: BGH, Az. III ZR 192/17
- Facts: A consumer unknowingly entered into a paid subscription because the order button was misleading.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that payment buttons must clearly state "Zahlungspflichtig bestellen", otherwise the contract is invalid.
2.2. Amazon's "Buy Now" Button Case- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 29/20
- Facts: Amazon changed its checkout button without making the purchase terms sufficiently clear.
- Outcome: The court ruled that unclear purchase buttons violate consumer rights, requiring explicit payment commitments.
2.3. Fake Discount Pricing on Online Shops- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 217/17
- Facts: A retailer inflated "original prices" to make discounts appear larger.
- Outcome: The court ruled this misleading advertising, violating § 5 UWG (Unfair Competition Act).
2.4. Influencer Advertising & Labeling Requirements- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 126/20 ("Cathy Hummels Case")
- Facts: An influencer posted sponsored content without labeling it as advertising.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that posts promoting brands require explicit ad disclosure, unless it's purely editorial content.
3. Intellectual Property & Copyright Cases3.1. YouTube Copyright Responsibility- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 140/15
- Facts: Copyright holders sued YouTube for hosting illegal uploads of their content.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that platforms are only liable if they fail to remove copyrighted content after notification.
3.2. Thumbnail Usage on Google Image Search- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 69/08
- Facts: A photographer sued Google for displaying image thumbnails in search results.
- Outcome: The court ruled that thumbnail previews are legal under fair use principles, as long as they link to the original source.
3.3. Embedding YouTube Videos & Copyright- Case: BGH, Az. I ZR 46/12 ("BestWater Case")
- Facts: A company embedded a YouTube video on its website, and the video was later removed for copyright infringement.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that embedding does not constitute copyright infringement, as no new copy is created.
4. Cybercrime & Platform Liability Cases4.1. Hosting Provider Liability for Illegal Content- Case: BGH, Az. VI ZR 196/18
- Facts: A website hosted defamatory user content.
- Outcome: The BGH ruled that hosting providers are liable only if they fail to remove illegal content after notification.
4.2. Google Autocomplete & Defamation- Case: BGH, Az. VI ZR 269/12
- Facts: Google’s autocomplete suggested defamatory terms next to a person’s name.
- Outcome: Google was forced to remove defamatory autocomplete suggestions.
4.3. Cyberbullying & Social Media Platform Liability- Case: OLG Frankfurt, Az. 6 U 133/19
- Facts: A social media user was cyberbullied with offensive comments.
- Outcome: The platform was required to remove abusive comments and improve reporting mechanisms.
5. Cryptocurrency & Fintech Cases5.1. Bitcoin as a Financial Instrument- Case: OLG Berlin, Az. 161 Ss 28/18
- Facts: A company operated a Bitcoin exchange without a BaFin license.
- Outcome: The court ruled that Bitcoin is a financial instrument, requiring regulatory approval.
5.2. NFTs & Ownership Rights- Case: LG Hamburg, Az. 308 O 36/21
- Facts: A digital artist sued a company for selling NFTs of their artwork without permission.
- Outcome: The court ruled that NFTs require explicit licensing rights, even if the artwork is publicly available.
6. Online Defamation & Freedom of Speech6.1. Right to Anonymity on the Internet- Case: BGH, Az. VI ZR 124/18
- Facts: A plaintiff wanted an online forum to reveal the identity of an anonymous user.
- Outcome: The court ruled that users have a right to anonymity unless serious legal violations occur.
Conclusion: The Importance of Online Law Case LawGerman courts play a critical role in shaping online law, balancing consumer rights, platform liability, data privacy, and digital freedoms. | 
