Koblenz Court Rules Limited Recourse for Victims of Fake Instagram Profiles
Koblenz, Germany – A recent decision by the Regional Court (LG) of Koblenz, dated August 25, 2025, case number 2 O 1/25, highlights a significant legal gap for individuals targeted by identity theft on instagram. The court ruled that Section 21 (3) of the Telemediengesetz (TDDDG - German Telemedia Act) dose not compel Instagram to disclose the identity of users operating fake profiles consisting of text and images, as the law’s provisions are limited to “audiovisual content.”
The case stemmed from a woman’s complaint after a fraudulent Instagram account impersonated her, utilizing her images and personal information, including her full address, shared with third parties. She sought to compel Instagram to reveal the account operator’s data under Section 21 TDDDG. Instagram refused, citing the law’s focus on illegal audiovisual material.
The LG Koblenz affirmed Instagram’s position, stating that Section 21 (3) TDDDG specifically addresses illegal audiovisual content or offenses covered by specific criminal statutes. The court steadfast that photographs and text-based posts do not qualify as “audiovisual” content, defining the term as requiring both audible and visible elements, such as video. The court also rejected arguments extending the definition of “audiovisual communication” from Section 1 (4) No. 7 DDG to § 21 TDDDG, noting its different purpose and focus on commercial communication.
While acknowledging the considerable harm caused by identity theft, the court emphasized its limited role in expanding statutory interpretation. It concluded that legislative action is necessary to broaden the scope of § 21 TDDDG to include protections for victims of identity theft involving non-audiovisual content. The judgment underscores the current lack of legal avenues for individuals seeking redress against perpetrators of identity theft on social media platforms when the abuse involves only images or text.
exam Relevance:
* § 21 TDDDG: Rights of information for illegal audiovisual content.
* Differentiation: text/photos vs. audiovisual content.
* Protection of basic rights (Art. 2 Para. 1 i.V. m. Art. 1 Para. 1 GG – Information self-determination).
* Legislative design scope in the area of tension between data protection and victim protection.
