DR. SARAFI secures a verdict for opinion blogger KuchenTV against a media law lawyer at the Braunschweig Regional Court
From our press archive. This communication gives the status of the original publication of 25 March 2024 again. Subsequent developments in the process are not automatically taken into account.
In a publicly discussed case, our law firm obtained an important verdict in preliminary injunction proceedings for the well-known opinion blogger KuchenTV.
The whole is based on the following:
We reported that we have legally unblocked the Twitch channel of live streamer, content creator and social media influencer KuchenTV.
A media law lawyer, whose name we do not want to reveal out of respect and collegiality, had commented on our client on his website in a way that was both condescending and legally questionable. A major reason for this article and the statements made by the lawyer concerned was the legal success of our client KuchenTV, which led to the unblocking of his Twitch channel. The lawyer in question represents an influencer who is publicly in conflict with our client and has expressed dissatisfaction with the restoration of our client's Twitch access.
The article in question not only contained inadmissible reports of suspicion, but also covertly disseminated false allegations and inadmissible expressions of opinion — which are notoriously difficult to prohibit.
As part of an extrajudicial warning, we first asked the colleague to correct his contribution accordingly. However, the lawyer was of the opinion that he was right and could write and leave this article as he had written it. Instead, we were accused of breaches of law.
In order to protect our client in the best possible way, we advised him to apply for a preliminary injunction with the district court. The competent district court took on the matter and called an oral hearing. During this hearing, the district court pointed out that it was also based on an inadmissible report of suspicion. The opposing lawyer then declared immediate acknowledgment in this regard and thus expressed that he now realized that we were right. With regard to the remaining allegations, however, he maintained his position that he had acted lawfully.
By ruling of March 22, 2024, the district court proved us right on all points. The lawyer was prohibited by the court from repeating the challenged statements. His article has been amended in the meantime. This case makes it clear that not only false statements of fact and abusive criticism are inadmissible and can be prohibited in court, but that the principles of suspicious reporting also apply not only to journalists and that expressions of opinion also have their limits where the general personal rights of the person concerned prevail.