DR. SARAFI secures preliminary injunction before Munich Regional Court I against Meta for rapper Azet
From our press archive. This communication gives the status of the original publication of 8 March 2024 again. Subsequent developments in the process are not automatically taken into account.
Meta had suspended our client Azet's Instagram account forever. Any efforts by the client to unblock the account were unsuccessful: Meta insisted that the account must remain blocked.
After we had issued an extrajudicial warning against Meta and asked it to submit a declaration of injunctive relief, Meta did not respond.
After the deadline set by us, we filed for a comprehensive preliminary injunction (132 pages) against Meta.
In addition to the extensive facts, the question of applicable law and the jurisdiction of the courts once again played a decisive role here.
The high amount in dispute of 100,000€ suggests that there could be no consumer contract here, but a business contract. Meta has “agreed” Irish law and Irish jurisdiction (place of jurisdiction Ireland) with entrepreneurs in the terms and conditions. We had to convince the court that German law was applicable and that a German court had jurisdiction.
Shortly after, our client's account was unblocked again without any contact with us.
However, because Meta did not issue a declaration of injunctive relief and unlocked our client's account but imposed significant range restrictions, we now insisted that this be resolved in court and were not satisfied with the unblocking. We explained to the court that the unblocking in no way meant settlement of the legal dispute.
By order of March 7, 2024, the Munich Regional Court I fully upheld our claim for an amount in dispute of 100,000€ and prohibited Meta from deleting or blocking or restricting the Instagram account of our client kmn_azet and charged Meta with the costs of the legal dispute.
Unfortunately, large providers — and also a large part of the population and even some courts — believe that providers are empowered to exclude people from the platforms or delete permitted contributions at their own discretion because they have virtual house rights. However, this is not the case; providers have no such all-encompassing (virtual) house law that allows them to decide arbitrarily whether or not to remove people or contributions from social networks.
The case of our client Azet clearly shows that it is worthwhile to act quickly and decisively and to involve a specialist lawyer. Time is of the essence, because long delays — usually longer than one month after the suspension — can mean that only legal action remains, which can take months or even years.
All press releases →After we had issued an extrajudicial warning against Meta and asked it to submit a declaration of injunctive relief, Meta did not respond.
After the deadline set by us, we filed for a comprehensive preliminary injunction (132 pages) against Meta.
In addition to the extensive facts, the question of applicable law and the jurisdiction of the courts once again played a decisive role here.
The high amount in dispute of 100,000€ suggests that there could be no consumer contract here, but a business contract. Meta has “agreed” Irish law and Irish jurisdiction (place of jurisdiction Ireland) with entrepreneurs in the terms and conditions. We had to convince the court that German law was applicable and that a German court had jurisdiction.
Shortly after, our client's account was unblocked again without any contact with us.
However, because Meta did not issue a declaration of injunctive relief and unlocked our client's account but imposed significant range restrictions, we now insisted that this be resolved in court and were not satisfied with the unblocking. We explained to the court that the unblocking in no way meant settlement of the legal dispute.
By order of March 7, 2024, the Munich Regional Court I fully upheld our claim for an amount in dispute of 100,000€ and prohibited Meta from deleting or blocking or restricting the Instagram account of our client kmn_azet and charged Meta with the costs of the legal dispute.
Unfortunately, large providers — and also a large part of the population and even some courts — believe that providers are empowered to exclude people from the platforms or delete permitted contributions at their own discretion because they have virtual house rights. However, this is not the case; providers have no such all-encompassing (virtual) house law that allows them to decide arbitrarily whether or not to remove people or contributions from social networks.
The case of our client Azet clearly shows that it is worthwhile to act quickly and decisively and to involve a specialist lawyer. Time is of the essence, because long delays — usually longer than one month after the suspension — can mean that only legal action remains, which can take months or even years.