{"id":72146,"date":"2026-11-11T05:32:02","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T03:32:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=72146"},"modified":"2026-11-11T05:32:32","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T03:32:32","slug":"business-instagram-account-blocked-frankfurt-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/competition-law-antitrust-law\/business-instagram-account-blocked-frankfurt-court\/","title":{"rendered":"LHR Case Study: Business Instagram Account Blocked \u2013 Meta Stays Silent, Frankfurt Court Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

Illustration: smartphone as a shop front with its shutter down and a padlock, shopping bags in front, next to the headline \u201cShop closed. Meta is silent.\u201dA third suspension, no reasons given and nothing but silence towards the court as well: for a trader whose entire business runs through Instagram, the account was shop window, till and customer file all at once.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main has now prohibited Meta from keeping the account blocked. Why does it help the company so little simply to say nothing?<\/em><\/p>\n

By order of 9 November 2026 (case no. 2-06 O 388\/26), the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Landgericht Frankfurt am Main) issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Meta Platforms Ireland Limited from deactivating our client\u2019s business Instagram account and from deleting the content, follower data and message data stored in it. Each infringement is subject to an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000, and Meta bears the costs of the proceedings. Eleven days passed between the receipt of our application and the order; there was no oral hearing.<\/p>\n

Business Instagram account blocked: a shop without premises<\/h2>\n

Our client trades in branded goods and sells them from Germany. She has neither an online shop nor physical premises; offers, advice and orders all run through Instagram stories and direct messages, and the account accounts for by far the largest part of her turnover.<\/p>\n

It was not the first suspension, and each one had cost her customers. In September 2026, Meta deactivated the business account again. The notices in the app referred to individual stories showing goods, and for precisely those goods our client was able to produce the purchase invoices. Nobody asked for them, however.<\/p>\n

In the weeks that followed, she appealed in the app and turned to out-of-court dispute settlement bodies. One of them considered itself not competent, and the other submissions had not changed anything about the suspension by the time the court ruled. Meta left our demand to restore the account unanswered until the deadline of 20 October 2026, and on 29 October 2026 the application for a preliminary injunction was filed with the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main.<\/p>\n

Why does silence in court not help Meta?<\/h2>\n

The chamber gave Meta until 6 November 2026 to comment on the application. Meta did not respond, so the court decided solely on the basis of our submissions and our client\u2019s affidavit. A platform that gives no reasons for a suspension, neither in the app nor to the lawyer nor to the court, cannot expect the judge to come up with a good reason on its behalf.<\/p>\n

In this situation, courts assume that the suspension was without cause. The Regional Court of Mainz said so expressly only a few days ago in proceedings we conducted concerning a Facebook account with a business page<\/a> (in German), and the 6th Civil Chamber in Frankfurt had previously prohibited Meta from blocking an account for alleged \u201caccount integrity\u201d issues<\/a> (in German) and from deactivating a journalist\u2019s channel once again<\/a> (in German).<\/p>\n

For traders who show branded goods in their stories in particular, mere suspicion apparently suffices for Meta\u2019s systems. Nobody wants to see the invoice that would dispel that suspicion beforehand, of course, and the platform offers practically no procedure in which it could be presented.<\/p>\n

Contract, competition law and a German forum<\/h2>\n

The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main based the claim on the terms-of-use contract and on competition law. The contract gives rise to duties of consideration under Section 241(2) of the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/a>, and since 2021 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has required a platform to inform users before a suspension, to state the reason and to give them an opportunity to respond (judgments of 29 July 2021, case nos. III ZR 179\/20<\/a> and III ZR 192\/20<\/a>). The Digital Services Act requires a clear and specific statement of reasons for every suspension (Art. 17 DSA<\/a>), and there was nothing of the kind here.<\/p>\n

Under competition law, Section 33(1) of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB)<\/a> entitles anyone affected by an unfair impediment by a company with market power to demand that it cease (Section 19 GWB<\/a>, Section 20(1) GWB<\/a>). In proceedings likewise conducted by us<\/a> (in German), the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main) explained when an Instagram user depends on Meta, namely when the suspension cuts the connection to their followers and they cannot even inform them of a move to another platform (order of 14 July 2026, case no. 11 W 12\/26<\/a> (Kart)). For a trader whose customers know her only through Instagram and order there, that is obvious.<\/p>\n

That a German court decides although Meta is based in Dublin follows from Art. 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation<\/a>, because an abuse under competition law is a tort. Anyone who also supplies customers abroad, however, needs a documented link between the business and Germany, and the application should back this up with evidence.<\/p>\n

What traders with a blocked Instagram account should do<\/h2>\n

The proceedings were not decided by any particular trick but by an application that left the court nothing to clarify. A few points can be taken from the case:<\/p>\n