Federal Court of Justice: Künast lawsuit against Meta - ECJ should clarify questions

In the legal dispute between the Green Party politician Renate Künast and the Facebook group Meta, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is supposed to clarify important legal questions. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) submitted the proceedings surrounding a so-called meme that was spread on Facebook to the Luxembourg judges for a preliminary ruling.

The meme combines a picture of Künast with a supposed quote: “Integration begins with Germans learning Turkish.” The text-image combination was published and shared on Facebook in different versions. But Künast never said this sentence. She is suing Meta for an injunction and at least 10,000 euros in compensation.

The “initial meme” has now been deleted. In court, Künast wants to ensure that Facebook has to delete all “core-identical” variants - without having to point out the individual Internet addresses to Meta. "Why? Because I can’t do it,” explained Künast in Karlsruhe. As a private individual, you cannot hire 30 people to search for similar posts worldwide. “That is simply the company’s job,” says Künast. The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had confirmed the injunctive relief in 2024, but rejected a claim for damages.

ECJ: Online marketplaces must check advertisements

The BGH had already heard the lawsuit in February 2025, but then wanted to wait for a decision from the ECJ on a similar case. At the end of 2025, the ECJ ruled that operators of online marketplaces are responsible for the dissemination of personal data in advertisements published there. You must therefore check advertisements with sensitive data before publication and prevent such advertisements from being copied and unlawfully distributed on other websites.

In the renewed hearing on Tuesday, the BGH expressed doubts as to whether these and other ECJ decisions can be transferred to the Künast lawsuit. He now wants to know from the ECJ, among other things, whether Meta is “fully responsible for data protection” under the European General Data Protection Regulation and whether the group benefits from the liability privileges contained in the E-Commerce Directive. The proceedings were again suspended pending a decision from Luxembourg. (Ref. VI ZR 64/24)