Higher Regional Court: Video platform may not simply block users completely

If the operator of a social media platform such as YouTube, Vimeo, TikTok, or Instagram blocks a channel due to violations of the terms of use, focusing on videos, the mere continued use of another, already existing "broadcast slot" by the affected party does not constitute an "evasion" of the sanction. A ban on all channels is not justified. With this decision, the Bamberg Higher Regional Court (OLG) ruled in favor of an influencer who successfully defended himself against the blocking of several of his channels on a video hosting and communication platform with the help of a preliminary injunction.

The dispute began in November 2024 with the permanent blocking of three of the plaintiff's channels due to alleged violations of policies on spam, misleading practices, and fraud. After this measure, the influencer was informed that the platform was revoking his access and that he was not allowed to use, own, or create any other distribution channels on it.

When the plaintiff subsequently continued to upload content to three pre-existing channels, the operator also blocked these in early 2025. He justified this by accusing the plaintiff of having circumvented the previous sanction, which constituted a serious violation of the user agreement and thus justified immediate termination. The Schweinfurt Regional Court had still upheld this position in the first instance, as it considered the continued use to be an evasion.

What does "evasion" mean?

The OLG Bamberg overturned the first-instance judgment and, with the decision now published, ruled the blocking of the channels affected in January as contractually invalid (Ref.: 4 U 62/25 e) as of the end of July. The central legal question was the interpretation of the term "evasion" in the terms of use. The Bamberg judges clarified that when interpreting general terms and conditions (AGB), the principle of the most customer-friendly interpretation according to Section 305c of the German Civil Code (BGB) must always be applied.

From the perspective of an average user who is not legally trained, "evasion" can only be understood as the intentional continuation of the originally complained-of contractually infringing use on another channel, the OLG emphasizes. The mere continued use of distribution channels whose content does not itself violate the policies therefore does not constitute circumventing the sanction in the sense of the contracts. Furthermore, the platform's blanket notification that the user is not allowed to use any further channels lacks a contractual basis and cannot be interpreted as an implied termination of the entire user agreement.

The platform has violated its obligations under the continuing user agreement, the judges explain. Therefore, the plaintiff has a claim for the channels to be unlocked and for an injunction against renewed blocking, provided that such renewed blocking is based on the unfounded accusation of evasion.

Streaming for a Living

The second instance also affirmed the grounds for injunction necessary for the summary proceedings. The unlocking constitutes a so-called performance injunction, which may only be issued if an existential need or emergency is credibly demonstrated. The plaintiff had stated and credibly demonstrated by affidavit that he earned his living from the advertising revenue of the channels and had to pay employees. The irreparable loss of income, followers, and reach during the blocking period fulfills the prerequisite of an existential threat.

Under these circumstances, referring the matter to the lengthy main proceedings would be equivalent to a denial of justice, according to the judgment. However, the judges limited the order for immediate unlocking of the three channels until January 31, 2027, to prevent an impermissible anticipation of the main decision.

Internet lawyer Jens Ferner evaluates the announcement as an important signal. The decision sets limits for platform operators and clarifies that they cannot arbitrarily block channels but are bound by contractual and procedural principles. The narrow interpretation of the term "evasion" is particularly relevant. The ruling gives influencers whose existence depends on their channels more legal certainty and better opportunities to defend themselves against unjustified blockades. Operators must justify their measures more carefully.

(wpl)