DR. SARAFI lawyers avert preliminary injunction against swear influencer Zara Secret
From our press archive. This communication gives the status of the original publication of 24 June 2025 again. Subsequent developments in the process are not automatically taken into account.
Frankfurt am Main, June 24, 2025 — Once again, we were able to achieve an important success for our client in the area of speech law. The influencer “Zara Secret”, who regularly disseminates pseudo-scientific theses on cancer, vaccinations and dietary supplements on social media, had our client warned about a critical-satirical YouTube video and then filed for a preliminary injunction. However, the Frankfurt Regional Court did not comply with the request — and the opposing party finally withdrew the request in full following our response.
This repelled attempts to prevent critical reporting of health-related disinformation by means of injunctive relief.
Background: Health myths, dietary supplements and false promises of salvation
“Zara Secret” has been an influencer in German-speaking countries for years and promotes dietary supplements from Dubai, which she sells via her own web shop. In her contributions, she regularly combines product advertising with esoteric claims and conspiracy stories about the pharmaceutical industry, vaccinations, conventional cancer therapies and veterinary medicine.
Particularly problematic: She repeatedly gives her followers the impression that her products are more effective or at least equivalent to conventional medical procedures such as chemotherapy. She has no medical or nutritional education. This form of misleading has already been publicly criticized by various bodies, including the Consumer Center, WDR, “Focus Online” and the YouTuber Just Nero.
On March 1, 2025, our client published a video in which he satirically commented on these statements and critically analyzed Zara Secret's advertising methods. He then received a warning with a request for injunctive relief.
The course of proceedings before the Regional Court of Frankfurt
We rejected Zara Secret's warning in detail on March 8, 2025. Nevertheless, on March 10, 2025, the other party filed an application for a preliminary injunction with the Frankfurt Regional Court, but without submitting the warning response, although it had already been available to Zara Secret's lawyer.
In addition, the letter of request for disposal was dated March 7, 2025, apparently to give the impression that the response did not yet exist at that time. In fact, the applicant's lawyer only confirmed receipt of the response by electronic acknowledgement of receipt on March 11, 2025, although the application had already been filed.
We complained of this action as an abuse of rights. In addition, we claimed that the complained statements made by our client represent admissible value judgments in the context of a public debate and are fully covered by the scope of protection of Article 5 (1) GG.
Legal Assessment: Freedom of Speech, Satire, and Critical Discussion
The statements at issue were made in a video in which, as in previous cases, our client critically, sometimes satirically and deliberately exaggerates the statements made by Zara Secret. These are admissible expressions of opinion within the framework of a socially relevant discussion.
Such contributions serve to form public opinion and fall under the particularly far-reaching protection of freedom of expression. The preview image used is also legally admissible: In accordance with Section 23 Paragraph 1 No. 1 of the KunstUrhG, it can be used without consent, especially as there is considerable interest in information.
Withdrawal of the request for disposal — announced main action never filed
Following our response, Zara Secret withdrew the request in full. Although her lawyer then publicly stated that they would now “sue in the main proceedings,” in fact, no main factual action has been filed to date.
It is therefore clear that the warning was unfounded, the proceedings were successfully averted by us, and the other party evaded the cost risk by withdrawing.
conclusion
The proceedings show once again that critical reporting about health-related disinformation and misleading advertising cannot be prevented by warnings or preliminary injunctions if it is based on facts and presented in satirical form.
Our client was able to fully assert himself. Freedom of speech has also proven to be a strong asset here — particularly in cases involving consumer protection and public health.
For inquiries:
DR. SARAFI Rechtsanwälte
info@sarafi.de