German Federal Court III ZR 179/20: what the Facebook ruling means for every platform

In two parallel cases (III ZR 179/20 and III ZR 192/20), the BGH clarified under what conditions Facebook (now Meta) may delete content or suspend accounts. The answer: only under clearly defined procedural conditions.

Concretely: the clauses by which Facebook reserved 'at sole discretion' suspension rights are invalid under § 307 BGB. The platform must hear the affected person before permanent suspension, give specific reasons, and open an appeal route.

Violation of this triad triggers not only a reinstatement claim, but also an injunction against further suspensions without procedural compliance - an effective lever against repeated suspensions.

The ruling is formally about Facebook, but materially transferable to any platform with comparable market position - the BGH relies on general unfair-terms control and the horizontal effect of fundamental rights.

In fact, regional and higher regional courts now apply the procedural triad to YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Twitch, eBay seller accounts, and even Discord. For gaming platforms the picture is more nuanced, but the principle applies there too.

Minimum standards are clear: hearing before permanent suspension, specific reasoning, at least one internal appeal route. Platforms not meeting these standards are challengeable - this is routine in our practice.

With the DSA in force since February 2024, the standards have tightened: what the BGH defined as minimum in 2021 is now an EU-wide legal duty (DSA Art. 17, 20, 21). The BGH standard runs practically in parallel with the DSA standard.

Both regimes complement each other: DSA governs formally, the BGH governs substantively. In litigation we cite both - the platform cannot escape any duty.

Important: the DSA only applies to providers with EU establishment or EU addressees. For US-only platforms it applies only partially - there the BGH line is the primary lever via § 307 BGB and horizontal effect of rights.

If you received a permanent platform suspension without a proper prior hearing, the suspension is regularly unlawful under the BGH line - regardless of whether the substantive allegation is true.

We check three questions: Did the platform hear you before suspending? Did it provide concrete facts? Did it open a working appeal route? If even one is no, the suspension is challengeable.

This makes the procedural triad the strongest standard lever in platform law. Even with acknowledged misconduct, a procedurally flawed suspension is formally invalid - with full reinstatement as the consequence.