Explore

The court ruled that online travel agencies are not liable for the accuracy of user-generated ratings on their web pages. First, anonymous remarks in a review cannot be ascribed to the travel agency, which does not endorse the users' comments. Any informed internet user would reject the idea that booking portals make all the comments their own. Second, there is no direct liability for hosting false comments due to the safeharbor for intermediaries provided by § 10 TMG, which is based on Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive. The “hosting provider” safe harbor applies because the online travel agency is a “neutral” platform that does not interfere with the user’s communication. Therefore, the Court noted, it is not obliged to fulfill “any unreasonable duties to review,” which could “challenge the entire business model”...

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, alleged that the German google-webpage contained a “snippet” from a third-party’s blog which suggested that the plaintiff had owned a brothel. In German legal language, a “snippet” is the text below the Hyperlink and the URL on the search engine results page displayed by Google, which “quotes” a part of the linked web page. The court ruled that this “snippet” is an expression of Google, therefore Google was liable for that otherwise third-party content.

The plaintiff, a TV station owner, alleged that the German-language Wikipedia article about him contained inaccurate information. The Court ruled that Wikimedia is a “service provider” and not a “content provider.” As a service provider, the German Court declared, Wikimedia is not liable for user-generated content, nor should proactively check Wikipedia entries for allegedly illegal or inaccurate content. Furthermore, because it is a service provider, the Wikimedia Foundation may not be held liable for financial damages. If, however, the Wikimedia Foundation is informed of certain content allegedly in violation of local law, according to the court, that content should be removed to maintain immunity from liability. See also Wikimedia Blog post for a summary of the decision in English.

The prediction of certain negative terms within the autocomplete function of the Google’s search engine is likely to violate personality rights. Google is not privileged by § 10 TMG because the autocomplete function creates new data out of the behavior of Google users. In this case, Google does not qualify as an intermediary for information but as a creator of content. Yet, there are limits to Google’s liability for violations of personality rights caused by the autocomplete function of its search engine. The autocomplete function is no direct threat to personality rights; it is rather a certain type of user behavior that creates a threat. Therefore, Google does not need to check every suggested term in advance. But Google has to stop the display of specific terms if it has knowledge that the suggested terms violate...