According to German telemedia law, each person and company maintaining an own website to sell goods or services is required to make available certain information (so called "Imprint" or "About US") in a way which easily enables recognition, and which is directly accessible as well as consistently available. Recently German courts have begun to impose the duty to use an imprint on the hosts of an own presence within a social media platform. Thus, the District Courts of Aschaffenburg and Regensburg have decided in 2011 and 2013 explicitly with regard to the hosts of individual Facebook websites that they have to use an own imprint if such Facebook website is used as an entry channel to an own website (outside of Facebook) on which professional services are offered for remuneration or if the Facebook account is used for marketing purposes and not solely in a private way.
This jurisdiction does now find its continuation with two further verdicts that have been handed down in the more recent past.
At first, the District Court in Stuttgart purported an obligation to use an imprint for an individual profile of an attorney at a lawyer's portal (kanzlei-seiten.de) by means of a verdict dated April 24, 2014 (case no: 11 O 72/14).
Afterwards, the District Court in Munich decided by verdict dated June 3, 2014 (case no: 33 O 4149/14) with regard to a member of the internet platform XING that the publication of an individual profile may already be deemed a relevant commercial activity and a breach of German competition law which may lead to the receipt of legal warning letters if they do not contain an own imprint. This decision also dealt with an attorney who set forth his professional qualifications and the name of his law firm as part of his own personal XING profile. According to the District Court in Munich, this would exceed a mere private use which is not subject to the requirement of an imprint. Quite the contrary, containing this information, the website would be suited for promoting the sale of the offered legal services from an objective point of view.
In conclusion, even the use of a seemingly private profile may coerce to the use of an imprint, at least in the instance a professional connection is established within this profile, primarily by referring to the employer or company for which the respective person works. This principle will not only apply to attorneys, but to all entrepreneurs, companies and professional guilds. If, nonetheless, no imprint is made available in the individual Social Media profile, the hosting of such website may result in the receipt of warning letters or even injunctions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
