In the fall of 2019, an internet magazine reported on the so-called “European Climate Declaration” in an article. This is an “open letter” from “500 scientists” on climate change calling for a new climate policy. The online magazine used its Facebook page to draw attention to its article in a post.
Lawsuit after “fact checking” on behalf of Facebook
A well-known non-profit company then subjected the “open letter” to a so-called “fact check” on behalf of Facebook. It came to the conclusion that some of the authors of the letter had no scientific background. In addition, some of the claims in the open letter were inaccurate and important information had not been sufficiently taken into account.
The Facebook post of the internet magazine was therefore provided with the addition “No: There are not 500 scientists; claims partly false”. A button was used to insert a link to the corresponding article on the defendant’s website. After a warning to cease and desist this addition, the whole thing ended up in court, but the Mannheim Regional Court rejected the urgent application (judgment of November 27, 2019, Ref.: 14 O 181/19). The magazine then lodged an appeal.
OLG: “Fact checking” is anti-competitive if misleading
The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe upheld the appeal in its ruling of May 27, 2020 (Ref.: 6 U 36/20). The decisive factor was that the design of the “Fact Checking” post was misleading for the average Facebook user. In particular, the “Fact Checking” article linked in the post can be understood to mean that the reviews and complaints relate to the article in the online magazine itself.
However, the “fact checking” actually referred to the “open letter”, which the magazine had merely reported on. The criticism was therefore not directed against the article itself, but against the statements by third parties referred to in it. The OLG therefore came to the conclusion that the internet magazine did not have to accept the objectionable addition “allegations partially false”.
Fundamental legality of fact-checking on Facebook remains questionable
The question of the fundamental legality of “fact checking” on Facebook was not decided in these proceedings. The judges expressly added this. It therefore remains to be seen whether another higher regional court or even the Federal Court of Justice will rule on fact-checking on Facebook in the future. In any case, there is no longer any reason for this in the present case: the ruling is no longer contestable.