No right to information against internet portal

Verdict: BGH rejects information claim against Internet portal

07/01/2014

Doctor rating portals on the Internet have increased enormously in recent years. Users can not only find doctors in their area, but also rate them. The BGH has now rejected the claim to information against one of these online portals in a landmark ruling.

Reviews about doctors on the internet
In the past few years, doctor rating portals on the Internet have increased enormously. Among other things, patients can find GPs or specialists in their area, or even read or write reviews about the physicians. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe has now made an important decision on the limits of anonymity on the Internet. Accordingly, an Internet portal does not have to reveal the name of a user who comments there anonymously.

Basic judgment on personality rights
The BGH has rejected the claim to information against an online portal in a landmark judgment (file reference: VI ZR 345/13) on privacy rights on the Internet. On Tuesday, the VI. Civil Senate in Karlsruhe the Internet service Sanego law that did not want to disclose the data of an anonymous user to a doctor from Schwäbisch Gmünd. As the chairman judge Gregor Galke said, the anonymity of the users according to regulation of the Telemediengesetzes should be canceled only in few exceptions. „The protection of personal rights is not mentioned“, so Galke.

False statements spread
In the specific case, Sanego had resisted a ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart that the review portal wanted to commit to give the name and address of the user who had repeatedly spread false claims about the doctor. The portal operator had on complaints of the physician, although this deleted, but a little later, the posts were read again. Under such circumstances, the Berlin Court of Appeal had still considered a doctor's right to information as possible.

Affected doctors would have to file criminal charges
Even if the BGH now saw this differently, the plaintiff is not standing there with completely empty hands after the judge's verdict. In the opinion of the federal judges, the physician can claim an injunction against the service provider Sanego. The Oberlandesgericht had rightly affirmed this. The portal must therefore delete ratings on request. In addition, a portal may be obliged to do so on a case-by-case basis, by order of the competent authorities, providing information on inventory, usage and billing data. For example, if it is necessary for law enforcement purposes. However, the doctor concerned would have to file a criminal complaint, a simple civil law claim to information does not exist. (Ad)