Interim injunction issued against YouTube by the Cologne Regional Court
Cologne, April 21, 2021. As recently as March 2021, the Berlin Regional Court rejected the urgency in motions against video blocking in press matters for a journalist against YouTube. However, the Cologne Regional Court continues to comply with effective legal protection and prohibits YouTube/Google from deleting a video without cause.
The media and press law firm Rehkatsch Rechtsanwälte successfully obtained an injunction against YouTube/Google Ireland Limited, Ireland. In it, the company was prohibited from blocking a video without telling the provider exactly which passage of the video was said to violate which company policy. A mere reference due to “medical misinformation” was not sufficient. Thus, a review of the accusation was already not possible.
The complaint was filed by the Cologne lawyer Gordon Pankalla. The latter had posted his own video on his channel with an interview of a fellow lawyer and a law professor. The video was deleted for no reason. In response to the complaint, YouTube simply informed “Complaint rejected. Guideline Medical Misinformation.“
In addition attorney Rehkatsch: In crisis times it cannot be that individual courts in our country suppress the liberty of the press, by not permitting urgent legal procedures of journalists. I am all the more pleased that the Cologne Regional Court is granting effective legal protection even against monopolists like YouTube.“
YouTube/Google can file an appeal against the preliminary injunction. Attorney Pankalla also intends to have the matter resolved by a basic declaratory judgment action. This is also intended to prepare future claims for damages. After all, arbitrary blocking also impairs the possibility of monetization.
If you also have problems with unlawful or arbitrary blocking by YouTube/Google and want to defend yourself against it, please call us (0221–4201074) or send us an email(firstname.lastname@example.org). We represent your interests.
Cologne Regional Court: Ref. 28 O 125/21, here the decision: