Influencers are not legally free opinion pirates. Anyone who attacks others publicly can quickly find themselves in the legal storm – even without a hashtag #advertising.
What happens when influencers verbally attack each other on the net? The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main recently made a differentiated decision on this and made it clear where the boundary between protected freedom of expression and inadmissible personality violation runs – and when competition law not grabs
Drama in the timeline – now also in court! In a judgment of July 17, 2025 (Az. 16 U 80/24), the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had to decide on a Zoff between two influencers. And it became clear: Anyone who distributes publicly about others must also take legal action in case of doubt.
The background: dispute between two well-known streamers
At the center of the case were two social media personalities, both of which are active on platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, TikTok and X (formerly Twitter). The plaintiff is known in particular for political and socially critical content and is committed to women’s rights and the LGBTQ community, among other things. Gaming content is also part of her repertoire.
In a video, an influencer hadn’t exactly spoken about an influencer colleague in a video – let’s put it this way: the words were clear and unflattering. The affected influencer saw her personal rights violated and went to court.
The defendant also regularly produces content for various platforms. In a YouTube video, he was critical – and sometimes violently – about the plaintiff. In a previous proceedings before the Frankfurt Regional Court, certain statements had already been prohibited. In the current appeal process, the question was whether further statements must be prohibited – and whether competition law can also apply.
No claims for injunctive relief under competition law among influencers – but personal rights remain protected.
Personal protection protection: partly yes, partly no
The Higher Regional Court made it clear: The plaintiff can certainly defend herself against certain statements – especially if her general personal rights are affected and weighs more heavily than the defendant’s freedom of expression.
The court says: Yes, such statements can the General Rights of Personality hurt – and then there’s a legal damper: Omission!
Specifically, the defendant is no longer allowed to claim that the plaintiff “hats a day, day out”, her business model is to “spread hatred and fake news”, or she would falsely accuse others of sexual harassment. The defendant was unable to provide any evidence for these statements – according to the court, these are untrue factual allegations that are not covered by the protection of freedom of expression.
Get to know our Germany-wide locations.
The situation is different with purely evaluative statements. Such opinions, such as that the plaintiff “spread hatred” or show “mysogenic behavior” must be accepted in a democratic climate of opinion – according to the court.
So if you pull yourself through others in public, you risk that you have to leave it in the future by court order. But: a competition law There was a claim not. Why? Quite simply: the two influencers stood not in competition together. and the statements were none business actions – So no advertising, no product comparison, no marketing trick. Just (rather unpleasant) talk.
No competitive relationship – no competition law claims
The judgment with regard to competition law is particularly interesting: the plaintiff had also tried to make use of the defendant against the unfair competition (UWG) on the basis of the law. But she was unsuccessful.
The court noted that between the parties no specific competitive relationship exists. Although both move in the same digital environment and are vying for attention in a broader sense, that alone is not enough. It is not clear that one wanted or could bring economic disadvantages to the other through his statements. In addition, there was a lack of a so-called business action: The defendant’s statements were not used to promote his own services or products, but were of an editorial nature – i.e. an expression of his personal perspective, embedded in an entertaining context.
The fact that both of them earn income through donations or advertising does not change anything. There is no concrete economic competitive situation – especially since the plaintiff had explained in the proceedings that she was mostly on a voluntary basis.
Opinion yes – targeted defamation no
The verdict brings clarity in an increasingly heated area of public discourse: Influencers also have to stick to legal limits, especially when it comes to personal rights. Competition law is against not the right instrumentto defend yourself against personal attacks – it only applies when economic interests and business actions are involved.
The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt was made in an urgent procedure and is not contestable.