Boycott call on the internet permissible?

Does the public call by an animal welfare association to a bank to terminate the account of an interest group of animal breeders constitute a violation of the general right of personality of the association or does it constitute a boycott call permissible by virtue of the free expression of opinion of the animal welfare association? The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide this legal question.

An animal welfare association had published a call on its homepage in which it called on a bank to terminate the account of an interest group of fur animal breeders maintained at that financial institution. The contribution of the animal welfare association was illustrated with pictures of the housing conditions of the fur animals and stated that the fur animal breeders in question were "fur animal abusers" and that there was "blood on the bank's money".

The association saw in this boycott call an encroachment on its right of personality and demanded discontinuation of the publication of the contribution on the animal welfare association's internet site.

After the association initially succeeded in the first instance, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) revoked the discontinuation obligation again. In the appeal to the BGH, the interest group demanded the restoration of the discontinuation obligation of the Regional Court (LG) judgment.

Decision of the court

Withjudgment of 19.01.2016 – Az. VI ZR 302/15 – the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed that the boycott call of the animal welfare association constituted a boycott call permissible within the framework of the right to free expression of opinion. A violation of the general right of personality of the interest group of fur animal breeders was therefore not present.

It is true that the boycott call of the animal welfare association encroaches on the scope of protection of the general right of personality. However, the protective interest of the association had to be weighed against the right of the animal welfare association to freedom of expression.

The public call attacked by the plaintiff for account termination in conjunction with the representation attacked on the internet is a fundamental right protected expression of opinion and not a statement of fact, for whose permissibility the truth of the statement would be the criterion. The boycott call expresses the disapproval of the association regarding the business conduct of the fur animal breeders and thus contains a subjective assessment.

This weighing by the BGH is not altered by the fact that the animal welfare association calls for donations in the same contribution and thus pursues its own economic interests. If an expression of opinion pursues a matter that substantially affects the public, freedom of expression as a rule carries greater weight.

Conclusion

A boycott call made on the basis of a factual dispute can thus be protected by the right to freedom of expression. However, prior legal examination of such action must be strongly recommended.