Künast v Meta: Germany’s Federal Court of Justice asks the CJEU who must find the copies
Your contact person
Four and a half years after the first judgment, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has once again not decided the case of Renate Künast against Meta. Instead it has asked questions – six of them, and in Luxembourg.
At stake is a problem familiar to anyone who has ever tried to get a lie about themselves removed from the internet: do you have to find every copy yourself?
On 27 October 2026, after an oral hearing, the VI Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) stayed the proceedings brought by Green Party politician Renate Künast against Meta, the operator of Facebook, and referred six questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling (BGH, order of 27 October 2026, case no. VI ZR 64/24; press release no. 204/2026, in German). It is the second pause in Karlsruhe. In February 2025 the Senate had already heard the case and then waited for the CJEU’s ruling in Russmedia (C-492/23). That judgment arrived in December 2025; clarity, apparently, did not.
Overview
A sentence she never said
The dispute concerns a meme, a combination of image and text. It shows a photo of Renate Künast, her name, her party and the sentence “Integration starts with you Germans learning Turkish for once.” She never said it. The image spread across Facebook in numerous variants – uploaded, shared, sometimes with an accompanying caption which, according to the findings of the lower courts, partly distanced itself from the quote and partly, unsurprisingly, added insults.
Künast reported the original meme and eight equivalent versions with their URLs, and Meta removed them one by one. The politician, however, was not content with that. She demands that Meta also remove all other identical or equivalent memes without her having to track down each URL, and claims damages for non-material harm of at least EUR 10,000. In Karlsruhe she summed it up, as reported by LTO and beck-aktuell, by saying that this was “simply the company’s job”.
The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Landgericht) found entirely in her favour in 2022 (judgment of 8 April 2022, case no. 2-03 O 188/21); we reported on that decision at the time (in German). The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht) upheld the duty to remove equivalent content in 2024 but rejected the damages claim (judgment of 25 January 2024, case no. 16 U 65/22). Both sides appealed on points of law.
Why Karlsruhe does not simply apply German law
The lower courts resolved the case with the well-established tool of German media law: the injunction claim under Section 1004(1) sentence 2 by analogy, in conjunction with Section 823(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB). Under this doctrine, a hosting provider that learns of a clear infringement must also prevent repetitions that are identical in their core. That in itself is not new. As early as 2019 the CJEU held that Facebook can be ordered to search for and delete identical and equivalent comments (in German), and the Frankfurt Regional Court later applied the same principle to Twitter (in German).
The playing field has shifted since then. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) are two European regimes that may supply additional causes of action but also new limits. When announcing the hearing, the Senate had already asked whether the claims could be based on Art. 17 and Art. 82 GDPR, and what role the prohibition of general monitoring obligations in Art. 8 DSA plays. According to the available reports, the Russmedia judgment classified an online marketplace as a controller under data protection law for advertisements containing personal data, even without prior knowledge. Whether that fits a social network is a question the Senate evidently regards as open.
The six questions sent to Luxembourg
According to the BGH’s press release, the Senate wants to know, in essence,
- whether a social network that merely stores user content and makes it accessible without prior knowledge of it is a controller without restriction within the meaning of Art. 4(7) GDPR,
- whether it can rely on the liability exemptions in Articles 12 to 15 of the E-Commerce Directive, and whether it makes a difference that content is algorithmically selected, ranked and recommended,
- under what conditions such a network qualifies as a hosting service within the meaning of the DSA,
- whether Art. 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Art. 8 DSA preclude an obligation to check equivalent content not only automatically but manually and on its substance,
- and whether the liability exemption also protects against damages claims under Art. 82 GDPR.
The fourth and fifth questions are the real core. According to the findings, similar images can be found automatically. But whether a meme with a particular caption still conveys the same lie or is mocking it is something no software reliably detects – only a human can. Meta argues that a hosting provider owes no such effort. We find that unconvincing: German law expects every party subject to an injunction to assess for itself whether a variation is identical in its core, and it is hard to see why a company with Meta’s resources, of all parties, should be unable to do so.
What applies until Luxembourg answers
One may regard the referral as thorough, and legally it is understandable. For those affected it is nonetheless bad news, because a preliminary ruling usually takes more than a year, after which Karlsruhe still has to decide the case itself. Until then the existing toolkit remains unchanged: the lower courts continue to apply the national injunction claim, and the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court confirmed it in this very case.
Anyone currently dealing with a false quote or a fabricated allegation on a platform should therefore not wait for the CJEU:
- Secure every version found with URL, date and screenshot, ideally with witnesses or an evidence-capture service, and also document a sample set of equivalent variants.
- Notify the platform specifically and with reasons through the notice mechanism under Art. 16 DSA, including proof of why the quote is false. Only this knowledge triggers the duty to act.
- Expressly demand that content identical in its core is removed as well, and record the platform’s response.
- If the platform remains inactive, a preliminary injunction may be an option. Urgency deadlines in German courts are short, often only one month from knowledge.
- Plan for monetary compensation only where the infringement is serious. Whether Art. 82 GDPR helps in addition is precisely the open question.
The proceedings themselves remain stayed until the CJEU has ruled. The false quote at the heart of the dispute has, incidentally, not become any truer in the meantime.
Frequently asked questions on removing equivalent content
What did the Federal Court of Justice decide on 27 October 2026?+
Does a platform have to delete copies of a reported post as well?+
Do I have to find every URL myself?+
Is there compensation for a fabricated quote?+
How much longer will the proceedings take?+
Are false quotes or allegations about you or your company circulating online?
We secure the evidence, report the content in a legally robust way and take action against platforms and authors. You will usually receive an initial assessment within 24 hours.
Further information
- Frankfurt Regional Court: Facebook must delete equivalent infringements – the Künast case (in German)
- Unlawful content: Twitter must also remove similar tweets once notified (in German)
- CJEU: Facebook can be required to search for and delete hate comments (in German)
- Our fields of activity
- Our successes
Related posts
Multiple awards.
