Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich strengthens rights against fake profiles: host providers liable for future identical and substantially similar accounts

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich ruled by judgment of 20 January 2026, Az. 18 U 2360/25 Pre e that social media platforms are not only obliged to delete fake profiles upon notification, but must also ensure that identical or substantially similar profiles do not re-emerge in future. The judgment is an important milestone for the protection of personality rights on the internet and clarifies the liability of host providers under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Fake profiles as a clear violation of personality rights

Fake profiles constitute a serious violation of personality rights. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich made clear that social media accounts created using a person's name or photos and giving the impression of being their official profile can violate their right to name, right to one's own image and general personality rights.

In the specific case, unknown third parties had created profiles on a social media platform using the names, photos and further personal information of the plaintiffs without their consent. The platform operator was informed about this but did not respond promptly. The affected persons then obtained a preliminary injunction before the Regional Court (LG) Munich I, which was now confirmed by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich.

The court expressly held that such fake accounts constitute unlawful identity misrepresentation and can therefore be prohibited. Particularly relevant is that it is not necessary for such a legal violation that additional false statements or defamatory content be disseminated. The use of the name or image without consent alone is sufficient if this creates the impression that it is an authentic profile of the affected person.

Host provider liable as indirect tortfeasor upon notification

The central component of the judgment is the clarification of the so-called indirect tortfeasor liability. The court held that although the platform operator is not themselves the perpetrator of the personality rights violation, they are nonetheless liable if they remain inactive despite concrete notification.

One is liable as an indirect tortfeasor who intentionally and adequately causally contributes to the legal violation and is able to prevent it. The prerequisite is that the platform operator obtains knowledge of the legal violation and becomes subject to duties of examination and action. These examination duties are triggered as soon as a complaint is sufficiently concrete and a legal breach is apparent without in-depth legal examination.

In the present case, the affected persons had specifically identified the fake profiles and informed the platform. This obliged the platform to examine and remove the profiles promptly. The court regarded the platform's failure to act until after a set deadline had passed and after the preliminary injunction was served as a breach of its obligations.

Digital Services Act does not protect platforms from injunctive relief claims

Particularly relevant to practice is the classification of the judgment in the context of the Digital Services Act (DSA). Platform operators frequently rely on liability privileges under the DSA to limit their responsibility. However, the OLG Munich made clear that these liability privileges do not exclude injunctive liability.

Even under the DSA, a host provider remains obliged to remove or block unlawful content promptly upon obtaining knowledge. If it fails to do so, it remains liable as an indirect tortfeasor. Furthermore, courts can also issue injunctive orders under the DSA to prevent future legal violations.

The judgment clearly shows that the DSA does not mean a general exemption from liability for platforms, but merely regulates certain prerequisites for liability privileges.

Obligation to prevent future identical and substantially similar fake profiles

A particularly important aspect of the decision concerns the scope of the obligation to refrain. The court held that the platform operator's obligation is not limited to the specifically reported profiles. Rather, the provider must also ensure that identical or substantially similar fake profiles do not re-emerge in future.

This means concretely: As soon as a platform is informed of a fake profile and recognises it as unlawful, it must take appropriate measures to identify and remove comparable profiles, even if they appear under a different URL or with minor variations.

This obligation is particularly significant because fake profiles frequently reappear after deletion under slightly altered addresses or names. The court emphasised that it is reasonable for the platform operator to identify and remove such content, since only it possesses technical control and oversight of the platform.

No general pre-examination duty, but clear action obligations upon notification

At the same time, the court made clear that platform operators are not obliged to examine all content in advance. No such general monitoring obligation exists.

However, as soon as a concrete notification of a legal violation occurs, action obligations arise. The platform operator must then examine the facts and take appropriate measures to end the legal violation and prevent future similar violations.

This differentiated approach creates a clear balance between effective protection of personality rights and technical and organisational reasonableness for platform operators.

Conclusion and practical tips: significantly stronger position for affected persons and clear obligations for platforms

The judgment of the OLG Munich represents an important clarification of the liability of host providers for fake profiles. Platform operators cannot limit themselves to deleting reported profiles, but must also prevent future identical or substantially similar violations. At the same time, it is confirmed that the Digital Services Act does not offer comprehensive exemption from liability.

This gives affected persons clear courses of action:

• Fake profiles should be documented and specifically reported promptly.
• Legal notice from an attorney can have additional legal effect.
• If the platform remains inactive, a preliminary injunction can provide rapid effective legal protection.
• Platforms are obliged to prevent future identical and substantially similar fake profiles.

For platform operators, the judgment means an intensification of their examination and action obligations upon obtaining knowledge.

Our law firm AVANTCORE has extensive expertise in online law and supports affected persons and companies in the enforcement and defence of their rights in connection with fake profiles and platform liability.

Overall, the judgment significantly strengthens protection of personality rights on the internet and shows that platform operators must consistently fulfil their responsibility for unlawful content.