Meta blocks Facebook account of an association – Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf sees this as a violation of antitrust law

In its latest ruling of April 5, 2025 (Ref. U (Kart) 5/24), the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf confirms the line taken by the Regional Court (Ref. 14d O 1/23) and concludes that Meta cannot block Facebook accounts without first conducting a hearing and providing an objective reason. In addition, the place of jurisdiction in Ireland stipulated in the terms and conditions is invalid due to a violation of antitrust law.

This was triggered by the blocking of the Facebook account of the Düsseldorf Filmwerkstatt, which primarily used the account for marketing purposes. In 2021, Meta blocked the Filmwerkstatt's account without notice, giving reasons or allowing it to comment. Meta merely referred to an alleged violation of its "community standards." What exactly constituted such a violation, which "standards" were affected, and what options for appeal existed remained unclear. Shortly before the suspension, the Filmwerkstatt published a still from the Oscar-nominated film "Der Schamane und die Schlange" (The Shaman and the Snake, rated FSK 12). The Filmwerkstatt's attempts to follow the procedures for account suspensions were unsuccessful.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf now considers this to be unlawful conduct on the part of Meta.

I. International jurisdiction

Meta initially objected to the jurisdiction of the German courts, referring to the place of jurisdiction in Ireland for entrepreneurs as stipulated in the terms and conditions.

However, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf justified the international jurisdiction of German courts on the basis of the antitrust claims asserted by the plaintiff. The agreement on the place of jurisdiction therefore did not apply. The international jurisdiction of the Regional Court of Düsseldorf thus followed from Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation. This is not precluded by the fact that there is a contractual relationship between the parties. Similarly, the jurisdiction under tort law is not superseded by a deviating agreement on jurisdiction. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf states:

„With its claim, the plaintiff asserts a claim based on an unlawful act within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation. This is because the claim seeks an injunction against the defendant, as the operator of the social network G., from abusing its dominant position by blocking the plaintiff's G. page (see Federal Court of Justice, judgment of February 10, 2021 – KZR 66/17, juris para. 9 et seq. – Wikingerhof/Booking.com). […] Contrary to the defendant's view, the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties does not preclude the claim from being classified as a tortious claim. The decisive factor for the distinction between the special jurisdiction of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation and the special jurisdiction of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which is to be made not under national law but under autonomous European law, is rather whether a legal claim is asserted that exists independently of a contractual relationship (see ECJ, judgment of November 24, 2020 – C-59/19, juris para. 25, 33 – Wikingerhof/Booking.com; BGH, judgment of February 10, 2021 – KZR 66/17, juris para. 11 – Wikingerhof/Booking.com)".

Thus, in the present case, it is not the agreement on the place of jurisdiction that is decisive, but the tortious nature of the claim asserted. According to this, Article 7(2) of the Brussels II Regulation applies, according to which the place of jurisdiction is the place where the anti-competitive conduct has its effects. With regard to Düsseldorfer Filmwerkstatt, the place of jurisdiction is therefore in Düsseldorf.

II. Violation of antitrust law: account suspension without prior hearing or statement of objective reasons

The film workshop asserted a claim for injunctive relief to prevent the abuse of a dominant position.

1. Dominant market position

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf first affirmed Meta's dominant market position, citing the uniqueness of Meta's offering on Facebook:

„In the market thus defined, the defendant has a dominant position because it is the only company that enables content providers such as the plaintiff to distribute their content to private G. users via their own G. page and to connect with their customers and interested parties represented on the G. social network via subscriptions or a "Like" function".

Meta's interoperability ensures that no other provider can come close to its offering. The court therefore sees no competitors for Meta. Finally, it is irrelevant that there may be another way for Filmwerkstatt to advertise its products and services to customers and interested parties.

2. Abuse

Furthermore, in line with its predecessor, the court recognizes that the blocking in the manner in which it was carried out, i. e., without prior or immediate subsequent statement of reasons and opportunity to comment, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Section 19(2)(1) GWB. According to Section 19 (2) No. 1 GWB, prohibited abuse is to be recognized, inter alia, if a market-dominant company offers commercial services and thereby directly or indirectly prevents another company from doing so in an unreasonable manner. This is precisely the case here. The film workshop is also a company. Furthermore, blocking an account without prior notice, stating reasons or giving the opportunity to comment constitutes an obstruction. An obstruction is to be assumed in any case if an undertaking is adversely affected in its freedom to engage in competitive activity. This is the case regardless of whether the adverse effect is on the same or a different product market than the one in which the abuse occurs.

The suspension of the Facebook account without a hearing or explanation restricts the film workshop's freedom to compete because it prevents the film workshop from advertising to its customers and potential customers on the social network as it wishes. With reference to the decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 23, 2020 (Ref. KVR 69/19), the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that proof of actual effects was not absolutely necessary. Rather, it depended on whether the measures taken were suitable to produce effects. In view of the increased number of followers of the film workshop on Facebook, the court affirmed the aforementioned requirement.

3. Unreasonableness

Finally, the court also recognizes Meta's conduct as unfair. In the context of a comprehensive balancing of interests, this is justified by the fact that Meta must base its decision on an objective reason for removing or blocking user accounts. Meta's structural superiority must not lead to arbitrary blocking. In addition, a certain degree of transparency must be ensured. Although Meta may, as the Federal Court of Justice ruled in its judgment of July 29, 2021 – III ZR 179/'20, set certain communication standards and impose consequences for non-compliance, any consequences such as account suspensions must not be based on subjective assessments, but must be linked to "objective, verifiable facts."

Against this background, a fair balance between the two fundamental rights can be achieved by Meta undertaking in its terms and conditions to inform its users immediately of any plans to block them and to give them the opportunity to comment. Subsequently, a new decision must be made on the facts of the case and access must be restored if the clarification is positive. Ultimately, Meta must ensure that content is not removed prematurely until a counterstatement procedure has been carried out.

III. Conclusion

The confirmatory ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf is to be welcomed. It strengthens the position of platform users and limits the ever-increasing power of platform operators. The reasoning shows that even absolute market leaders such as Meta must operate within the limits of law and fairness and that arbitrary behavior outside these limits will be punished. Antitrust law has also proven to be a helpful tool in combating such illegal practices on platforms.