Germany defamation online: claims, crime, takedown

Germany defamation online is governed by three criminal offenses in the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB): insult (Beleidigung, section 185), malicious defamation (üble Nachrede, section 186) and slander (Verleumdung, section 187). A false or unprovable factual claim about you can also support a civil claim for removal and an injunction, and a notice to the platform runs through the EU Digital Services Act, applied in Germany by the Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG).

The line that decides most cases is the one between a statement of fact and an opinion. A fact can be proven true or false; an opinion is protected by the Basic Law unless it crosses into insult. Everything below is built on that line, on the statutory texts, and on the clocks that start when you learn of a post.

This article is information, not legal advice. German counsel decides what applies to your facts. We read the statutes and the EU regulation named below for this piece; we did not read court decisions, so where the courts shape a rule, the text says so.

3 monthsto file a complaint where one is required, counted from knowledge of the act and the person

3 yearsregular civil limitation period, which starts at the end of the year of knowledge

6 monthsminimum time to complain to an online platform about its decision on your notice

Sources: section 77b StGB and sections 195 and 199 BGB on gesetze-im-internet.de; recital 58 and Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (recital read on EUR-Lex).

German law treats online defamation as a crime and a civil wrong at once

Germany runs two tracks on the same post. The criminal track is a prosecution for insult, malicious defamation or slander. The civil track is your claim against the author, and sometimes the platform, for damages, removal and a promise not to repeat the statement. They follow different clocks.

The criminal track punishes the author and does not remove anything by itself. A conviction does not delete a post. The civil track is the one that aims at the content, and the platform track is the practical way to reach a host.

Related readUAE Defamation Law Online: Claim, Complaint, Limits

Insult is a standalone crime, so a statement that is not a factual claim at all can still be unlawful. And the tests sit in codified statutes read against Article 5 of the Basic Law, which protects opinion and says that protection is limited by general laws and by each person's right to personal honor. In Germany you start by classifying the statement, then choose the track.

Sections 185, 186 and 187 separate insult, unprovable facts and known falsehoods

Each section answers a different question, and the text of all of them is on the official federal statute database. Section 185 asks whether the statement disrespects you. Section 186 asks whether a damaging factual claim can be proven true. Section 187 asks whether the speaker knew it was false. The penalties rise in that order for the heavier variants.

Insult (section 185): opinion that crosses the line

Section 185 StGB is titled Beleidigung. The base penalty is imprisonment up to one year or a fine. The maximum rises to two years or a fine when the insult is public, made at a gathering, committed by disseminating content, or committed by physical assault. Content here is defined in section 11(3) StGB as information held in written works, recordings, digital storage and similar forms, and it also covers information sent electronically without being stored, so a post or a comment fits.

Insult does not need a false fact, and a crude personal attack can be one. The Basic Law pulls the other way, since opinions are protected, so the question is where a harsh opinion stops being protected.

Malicious defamation (section 186): the claim you cannot prove

Section 186 StGB, üble Nachrede, applies to someone who asserts or spreads a fact about another person that is suited to make that person contemptible or to lower them in public opinion. The offense applies only if the claim cannot be proven true (it is not erweislich wahr). The base penalty is up to one year or a fine. The maximum is two years or a fine for a public act, an act at a gathering, or an act by disseminating content.

Related readGDPR Right to Erasure Exceptions: When Refusal Is Lawful

The text turns on whether the fact can be shown to be true, so the person who spreads a damaging claim is exposed if it cannot be shown. A reviewer who writes "the owner stole from a client" with nothing to back it is in that zone.

Slander (section 187): the known falsehood

Section 187 StGB, Verleumdung, covers a fact the speaker knows to be untrue ("wider besseres Wissen"), suited to make the person contemptible, to lower them in public opinion, or to endanger their credit. The base penalty is up to two years or a fine. The maximum is five years or a fine for the public or content-spreading variant. Negligent or good-faith falsehoods do not meet section 187; the knowledge requirement is the point.

Public life and the dead (sections 188 and 189)

Section 188 raises the stakes when the target stands in the political life of the people, a phrase the text extends down to the municipal level. It requires a public or content-spreading act, a motive tied to the person's position, and an act suited to significantly hinder their public work. Insult then carries up to three years or a fine; malicious defamation from three months to five years; slander from six months to five years. Section 189 covers disparagement of the memory of a deceased person, with up to two years or a fine.

Section 185 insult2 years

Section 186 malicious defamation2 years

Section 188(1) insult of a person in political life3 years

Section 187 slander5 years

Maxima only, not typical sentences. Source: sections 185, 186, 187 and 188 StGB on gesetze-im-internet.de, read in this session.

Fact versus opinion decides the case before any section is applied

A statement that can be proven true or false is a factual claim, and a statement that expresses a view is an opinion. The statute texts already build on this. Sections 186 and 187 speak only of facts, while section 185 speaks of insult and has no fact requirement. Article 5(1) of the Basic Law gives everyone the right to express and spread opinions in words, writing and images.

Related readDefamation law France: claim, proof and the clock

That produces a working rule for classification. Ask whether a reader could check the statement against reality. "He was dismissed for fraud" can be checked. "He is a disgrace" cannot. Mixed statements, such as "a fraud, as everyone knows", are where counsel earns the fee, because the factual core and the judgment are weighed differently.

Section 193 StGB gives the defense side something to use. It protects statements made in pursuit of legitimate interests, and it names critical judgments of scientific, artistic and commercial achievements as an example. Such statements are not punished as insult unless the insult follows from the form of the statement or the circumstances in which it was made. A harsh but reasoned review of a product therefore starts from a better position than a string of personal abuse about the owner.

How courts weigh free expression against personal honor in borderline cases comes from decisions we did not read for this piece. Treat any firm prediction on a borderline post as a question for German counsel.

A criminal complaint has a three-month clock and a short list of exceptions

Insult is prosecuted only on application (a Strafantrag): section 194(1) StGB says so in its first sentence. The injured person holds the right to file. If that person dies, the right passes to the relatives listed in section 77(2). For disparagement of the deceased, those relatives hold the right.

The window is set by section 77b StGB, titled Antragsfrist: three months. It starts at the end of the day on which the entitled person learns of the offense and of who committed it. If the last day falls on a weekend or a public holiday, it moves to the end of the next working day. The period runs separately for each entitled person.

Related readIndia Defamation Online: Claim, Clock and Takedown

Two points are easy to miss. First, section 194(1) waives the complaint for an insult committed at a gathering or by disseminating content only where the victim was persecuted as a member of a group under National Socialist or other violent rule and the insult relates to that persecution. An ordinary online insult needs a complaint. Second, for section 188, section 194 lets the authority proceed without a complaint when it affirms a special public interest, unless the injured person objects, and that objection cannot be withdrawn.

The first sentence of section 194(1) is written for "die Beleidigung", the title of the chapter that holds sections 185 to 200. Sections 188 and 189 appear in section 194 itself, which shows the complaint regime reaches beyond section 185. The text does not name sections 186 and 187 in that sentence, so whether the same complaint rule governs them is a point to settle with counsel before you rely on a later date. File inside the three months if you want the criminal track open.

Civil claims reach the content: sections 823, 824 and 1004 of the Civil Code

The civil track is the one that aims at removal. Three provisions carry it, and the first two tell you what the claim needs.

Section 823(1) BGB makes a person liable for damage when they intentionally or negligently and unlawfully injure life, body, health, freedom, property or another right (a sonstiges Recht). The general personality right is not named in the section. German courts have developed it as one of those other rights, resting on the Basic Law, including its protection of free personal development in Article 2(1); we did not read the decisions. The text of section 823(2) adds liability for breaking a law that is meant to protect others. Which statutes qualify, and whether the criminal offenses above do, is for counsel to confirm.

Related readDefamation law South Africa: claim, defenses, clock

Section 824 BGB addresses a false statement of fact that endangers someone's credit or harms their business or livelihood. The speaker owes compensation even without knowing the falsity if they should have known. Section 824(2) shields a person who passes on a statement without knowing it is false when they or the recipient have a legitimate interest in it. For a business, this is often the closer fit than the personality right.

Section 1004 BGB is where removal and the injunction come from, but its text is about ownership. It gives the owner a claim to have an interference removed (Beseitigung) and, where further interference is to be feared, a claim to an injunction (Unterlassung). German practice applies these claims by analogy to other protected interests, personality rights included. The section text we read does not say so; that application is judge-made, and we did not read the decisions. Take it as the working basis and not as a reading of the statute.

The regular limitation period is three years under section 195 BGB, and under section 199(1) it starts at the end of the calendar year in which the claim arose and you learned, or without gross negligence would have learned, the facts and the identity of the debtor. Other periods may apply to publishers and press content under the state press laws, which we did not read. Interim injunction procedure usually expects fast action, but that practice comes from procedure and case law we did not read, so ask counsel early.

Related readOnline Harassment Laws by Country: Where Each Route Leads

The platform route runs through the Digital Services Act and the DDG

To reach a host, start with a notice. Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires hosting services to offer an easy electronic mechanism to report specific information a person considers illegal. In Germany the DDG applies the regulation, and section 12 DDG makes the Bundesnetzagentur the default competent authority under Article 49(1) of the DSA.

What a good notice contains

The official EUR-Lex page could be opened only as far as the recitals for this piece, so the article numbers in this section follow a public copy of the text; check them on EUR-Lex before you file. Recitals 22, 50 to 54, 58 and 59 were read on EUR-Lex and match the substance. Article 16(2) lists four elements: a sufficiently substantiated explanation of why the content is illegal; the exact electronic location, such as the address of the post; your name and email address (not needed for certain child abuse offenses); and a statement of good faith that the notice is accurate and complete. For defamation, the explanation is where the work is. State the exact sentence, whether it is a fact or an opinion, and why the fact is false or unprovable.

What the notice does to the platform

Under Article 6(1), a hosting service is not liable for stored user content if it has no actual knowledge of illegality, and, for damages claims, is not aware of facts that make the illegality apparent, or if it acts quickly to remove or block once it knows. Article 16(3) says a notice that lets a diligent provider identify the illegality without detailed legal examination gives the provider actual knowledge of that item. Article 6(4) leaves untouched the power of courts and authorities to order a provider to end or prevent an infringement.

Related readAnti-SLAPP Law Explained: Early Dismissal and Fees

A notice that spells out why a statement is false converts "we did not know" into "we were told". A notice that only says "this is defamatory" leaves the provider room to say legal analysis is needed.

If the platform says no

The platform must tell you what it decided and what redress exists (Article 16(5)), and automated tools must be disclosed in that notice (Article 16(6)). On an online platform, Article 20 gives you an internal complaint system, free and online, with at least six months to complain from the day you are informed (recital 58). Article 21 lets you choose a certified out-of-court dispute body. Its outcome does not bind either side (recital 59), and you can go to court at any stage.

The Bundesnetzagentur says in its press release of 14 May 2024 that it can fine and impose coercive payments on providers that systematically break the rules, but it does not decide whether content is illegal and cannot delete content or issue removal orders. Complaints to it can cover cases where reporting illegal content is not easy or where reasons are not clearly given. It is a supervisor, not a content judge.

What happened to the NetzDG

The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) used to be the German platform takedown statute. On the official site, its table of contents marks sections 2 to 3f and 5a as repealed (weggefallen). What remains includes section 1, whose list of unlawful content still names sections 185 to 187 and 189 StGB, section 4 on fines, and section 5, which requires a domestic service agent for operators not established in another EU member state. That page is labeled an unofficial table of contents, so check the official text before relying on it.

Related readCourt order against social media platform, by country

One further trap: section 8 DDG gives a blocking claim to holders of intellectual property rights. It is not a reputation tool, and an article about a defamatory post should not rely on it.

Choose the route by the outcome you need

Fast removal, a lasting promise not to repeat, money, and a criminal record for the author are four different aims, and each fits a different track.

The notice is cheap and often enough for plain falsehoods. The civil claim comes next for repeat posters or hosts that refuse. The criminal complaint is a separate decision, and its three-month clock means you decide it early.

A worked scenario shows the sequence and the failure points

This is a scenario with invented, generic parties and stated assumptions, not a real case. A small business owner finds a public post on a social platform saying the owner "falsified safety certificates", and a comment under it calling the owner "a criminal pig". The post is anonymous. The owner learns of both on the same day. Assume the platform is a hosting service offering services in Germany and has its own notice form.

Classify first. The certificates sentence is a factual claim and can be checked. If the owner can show the certificates are genuine, the sentence is false, and if the author knew it, sections 186 and 187 are in play; if the author cannot prove it true, section 186 applies. The second line is an opinion in harsh form, a candidate for section 185, and the speaker will argue it is protected opinion.

1. Capture the evidenceSave the post, the comment, the date and time you saw them, and the address of each. Do this before any contact, because posts change after a notice.
2. Classify each statementSplit the post into factual claims and opinions. Prepare proof for each factual claim, such as the certificates themselves.
3. Send a precise noticeUse the platform's Article 16 mechanism, quote the sentence, state why it is false, give the proof, and add your name, email and the good-faith statement.
4. Diary the three monthsWrite down the date you learned of the post and, if known, the author. Decide on the criminal complaint inside that window.
5. Escalate if refusedUse the internal complaint and, if useful, the out-of-court body, and consult counsel on a civil claim for removal and an injunction.

A clear notice with proof is usually answered within days to a couple of weeks, and a refusal adds another round. These are experience ranges, not promises, and the criminal and civil tracks are slower. Do the evidence, the notice and the diary in the first week, while every option is open.

Related readAustralia defamation online: how the law works

What can go wrong: the failure modes to plan for

• The notice is vague. "This is defamation" gives the host no facts to act on. Quote the statement and say why it is false or unprovable.
• The statement is an opinion. Protection is strongest for harsh views on quality or service, and a notice that treats one as a false fact is likely to fail.
• The clock runs out. The three-month criminal window and the civil limitation period start at knowledge. Waiting for the author to stop, or for the platform to answer, does not stop either clock.
• The attempt becomes the story. A heated reply or a public threat to sue can draw more readers than the original post. Keep contact formal and in writing, and keep public answers short and factual.

None of these routes hides a post that is accurate and in the public interest. They address statements that are false, unprovable or abusive.

If this is happening to you now, start with the evidence and the dates

Save the post and its address, write down the dates you learned of it and of the author, and decide in the first week which track you want. A removal request to a platform, a civil claim and a criminal complaint answer different goals and run on different clocks. Reputation Partners can map which of these fit before you spend on counsel.

If the content also shows in search results, our removal service page explains how removal at the source differs from removal from results.

Questions people ask

Is it a crime to insult someone online in Germany?

Yes, it can be. Section 185 StGB makes insult punishable by up to one year in prison or a fine, and up to two years where it is public or spreads content. It is prosecuted only on a complaint, and you have three months from learning of the act and the person to file one. Opinions are protected, so a harsh judgment is not automatically an insult.

What is the difference between üble Nachrede and Verleumdung?

Üble Nachrede (section 186) is a damaging factual claim that cannot be proven true. Verleumdung (section 187) is a damaging factual claim the speaker knows to be untrue. Both are set out in the StGB, and slander carries the higher maximum: up to two years, or five for a public or content-spreading act, against one and two years for section 186.

Can I get a post removed without going to court?

Often a notice to the platform is the first and cheapest step. Under the DSA, hosting services must offer a way to report illegal content, must tell you their decision, and must give you a complaint route. If they refuse, court action against the author or host remains open, and the platform route does not close it.

Is a harsh negative review defamation in Germany?

Not by itself. A review that gives a view on quality or service is an opinion, and Article 5 of the Basic Law protects opinions. Section 193 StGB also protects critical judgments of commercial performance unless the form or circumstances amount to an insult. A review that states a checkable false fact, such as a claim of fraud, is judged differently.

Can I sue if the author is anonymous?

You can try to identify the author through a court process against the platform, which this article does not map. We did not read the case law on disclosure of user data, so take it to counsel. Meanwhile, the platform notice and the evidence work do not depend on knowing who wrote the post.

Can the heirs of a dead person act against false claims?

For disparagement of the memory of a deceased person, section 189 StGB sets a penalty of up to two years or a fine, and section 194(2) gives the complaint right to the relatives named in section 77(2). Civil routes for the dead are a point for counsel, since we did not read that law.

How long do I have to act in Germany?

For a complaint where one is required, such as insult, three months from knowledge of the act and the person. For civil claims, the regular limitation period is three years from the end of the year in which you learned the facts and the debtor, subject to shorter or other rules in specific areas. If in doubt, act in the first weeks.