The legal dispute decided by the Federal Supreme Court concerned a file sharing warning and the question of whether the connection owner had to provide information about a perpetrator known to him (BGH, judgment of December 17, 2020, Ref.: I ZR 228/19).

File sharing warning as the starting point of the legal dispute

The computer game „Saints Row 3“ was offered for public download via the internet connection of the later defendant in a file-sharing exchange. The rights holder therefore issued a warning to the owner of the internet connection. The latter then issued a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. At the same time, however, he declared that he himself had not made the game publicly accessible on the internet.

This is because two halves of a semi-detached house were supplied with the WLAN of the Internet connection. Only one half was occupied by the defendant and his daughter. The other half was occupied by the defendant’s partner and her son. From there, both the partner and the son as well as other persons had access to the network. There were therefore a large number of possible perpetrators. The owner of the connection knew who had offered the game publicly, but did not want to reveal this out of court.

Plaintiff company: Refusal to provide information about the perpetrator unlawful

In the subsequent court proceedings, the company therefore requested that the defendant no longer be held liable for his own perpetration, but for the pre-trial concealment of the perpetration of which he was aware. The company had already been unsuccessful with this claim before the Landshut Local Court and the Munich Regional Court. It therefore tried its luck before the Federal Court of Justice.

BGH: No right to information against connection owner

The judges in Karlsruhe have also ruled that the owner of an internet connection does not have to name the perpetrator in advance in the event of file sharing. Not even if he is known to him. This is because the obligation of the connection owner to provide information arises neither from the cease-and-desist agreement concluded on the basis of the warning letter nor from a so-called „culpa in contrahendo“.

In the opinion of the court, there was also no other special relationship between the parties to the legal dispute that could justify an obligation on the part of the connection owner to provide information. A claim under Section 826 BGB was also ruled out, as the conduct of the warned party did not constitute intentional immoral damage to the company.

This makes it clear: after receiving a warning letter, connection owners are not obliged to reveal the true perpetrator to the rights holder in advance. With its ruling, the Federal Court of Justice has thus considerably strengthened the rights of those affected.