Social media law for companies, creators, agencies and platforms

Our social media law practice: companies, creators, agencies, platforms

Quick start: what is your situation?

Your contact: Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM

Partner, certified specialist lawyer for copyright and media law and for IT law (Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht, Fachanwalt für IT-Recht).

Send social media enquiry

What happens after your enquiry?

After your enquiry, we get back to you within 24 hours on working days. The first contact is free of charge. You will be informed explicitly before any costs are incurred.

1. A short description is enough. Describe the channel, profile and trigger. Screenshots, platform messages, contract documents, campaign briefings and a short timeline are helpful.
2. Receipt and initial sorting. We assess the enquiry on the basis of the project described, the documents and the apparent goal. Deadlines and dates should be clearly recognisable.
3. Suitable starting point and cost range. We clarify whether an initial consultation, a service package or a specific mandate is the next step. As soon as the scope of the review is clear, we tell you the cost range – before work begins.

Typical cases from our practice

The following scenarios are abstracted and simplified. Which solution holds up always depends on the specific facts and the contractual situation.

What you will have at the end

Account suspension, platform measure and collapse in reach

When social media law suddenly becomes business-critical, it is often here: content is removed, reach collapses, ad accounts are deactivated or entire accounts can only be used to a limited extent. For companies, creator businesses, agencies and publicly exposed people, this can trigger operational and commercial consequences within hours.

Typical cases are suspensions of main accounts, deactivations of ad accounts, restrictions on business assets, rejection of complaints, automated deletions, deprioritisation of individual content, demonetisation or the blocking of a verified profile. Legally relevant are then the platform terms, the contractual integration of the account, questions of evidence, internal complaint routes and, for larger platforms, also the procedural logic of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services – Digital Services Act (DSA) (opens in a new tab).

For acute unblocking cases, the specialisation under social media account suspension is the direct entry point. If the matter tips more into personality rights, publication or injunctive relief, media law, press law and, under particular time pressure, preliminary injunction are often the more relevant follow-up topics.

What triggers these cases in practice

• alleged breaches of community guidelines or advertising policies
• incorrect classification by automated systems or unclear platform reasons
• notices from third parties, for example due to identity misuse, labelling, music, image use or alleged misleading statements
• multiple restrictions that seem formally minor but commercially damage the entire channel

What should be secured immediately

• screenshots, timestamps, platform notifications and rejections
• the connection of the suspension to revenue, reach and campaigns
• existing contracts, approvals, ad references and ongoing obligations towards customers or brands
• the entire communication history with the platform or intermediary contacts

Operational mistake with a high consequential damage effect

Many of those affected react too late or with the wrong priority. They first discuss questions of fault internally instead of securing the evidence, properly documenting the platform's responses and demonstrating the commercial relevance of the account. Anyone who starts days later with incomplete evidence after a decision relevant to a suspension often loses room for negotiation unnecessarily.

Practically important for large platforms

The DSA does not replace a substantive legal review, but can be practically relevant for statement of reasons, complaints, transparency and procedural rights. For German platform supervision, the Digital Services Coordinator at the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) (opens in a new tab) is a particularly relevant official reference point. For initial immediate measures in the event of suspensions, the ITMR in-depth article Account suspension: Facebook, Instagram, X blocked is also helpful. If minors are among the users, Art. 28 DSA already requires online platforms to take appropriate protective measures. What the planned EU KIDS Act additionally provides for, with a minimum age of 15 for own accounts on networks with risk functions, is shown in EU KIDS Act: what the proposal means for platforms.

Campaign, cooperation and labelling

A considerable proportion of commercially relevant social media mandates arise before a campaign goes live or in the middle of an ongoing cooperation. Then it is less about an abstract definition of advertising. It is about whether exactly this mechanic, exactly this allocation of roles and exactly this format are legally viable.

Typical constellations are creator campaigns, discount codes, shop links, affiliate mechanics, product placements, event invitations, provision of products, platform shops, promotions open to comments, prize games, recommendation formats and performance-oriented ad sequences. That is exactly where labelling, platform logic, approvals, claims, chain of rights and allocation of liability meet.

If the primary question lies in general advertising admissibility rather than in the social media channel, advertising law or, in contentious injunction and warning letter situations, competition law is often the more precise main page. If the contract and role logic between brand, agency, management and creator forms the focus, the more specialised in-depth page is often influencer law or influencer marketing.

To be reviewed properly before going live

• Is the commercial purpose sufficiently recognisable in the specific presentation?
• Who is responsible for labelling, approval, correction and crisis communication?
• Are discount codes, landing pages, terms of participation and creator briefings free of contradictions?
• Is there robust documentation of consideration, approval and subsequent changes?

Where campaigns regularly go off the rails

• overly general assumptions about the labelling of individual formats
• unclear approval loops between brand, agency and creator
• missing provisions on rework, deletion, transfer of rights and paid usage
• mechanics that are supposed to appear permissible on social media but fail at landing page or competition law level

Particularly error-prone legally

Hybrid forms of editorial style, personal recommendation and clear sales promotion are regularly more delicate than open classic advertising. This applies all the more to professionally run accounts. Decisive are in particular the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG, German Act against Unfair Competition) (opens in a new tab), depending on the format the Medienstaatsvertrag (MStV, Interstate Media Treaty) (opens in a new tab) and the contractual structure of the specific set-up.

• Obligation to label advertising on Instagram and the Medienstaatsvertrag
• Advertising as a direct message without consent
• Marketing law for cross-channel campaign and communication processes

Content rights, reposts and user-generated content

Social media often escalates rights issues faster than other channels. Content is shared, cut, recombined, set to music, extended in ads, archived, replayed or integrated into third-party campaigns. That is exactly where many commercially relevant legal mistakes arise.

In particular, rights of use in photos, videos, music, graphics, voice elements, creator content, testimonials and user-generated content must be reviewed. Added to this are the right to one's own image, name and trade mark references, consents, editing rights, archive use, whitelisting, paid usage and the question of whether a repost, a duet, a story share or further exploitation is actually covered by the chain of rights.

If the focus lies in licensing, warning letters, chain of rights and copyright enforcement, copyright law is the more precise in-depth page. If it is more about consent, image use and photographic exploitation, the more relevant route often leads to image and photo law. If a content conflict turns into a dispute about publication or personality rights, media law or press law can also be the main axis.

Review questions before a repost or further exploitation

• Who has granted which rights for which channels, terms and edits?
• Is organic use covered in the same way as ad placement, archive use or whitelisting?
• Is it merely a share within the platform or a new commercial use in a different context?
• Are there written approvals for depictions of people, testimonials or team members?

Particularly error-prone formats

• reels, shorts and short videos with music or third-party material
• duets, stitch formats, reaction videos and story shares
• creator content that is later to be reused for ads or newsletters
• before-and-after presentations, event material, employee content and screenshots of third-party content

Avoidable standard mistake

In practice, often only the first publication is considered, not the later commercial exploitation. That is exactly where the case then tips into a dispute: the campaign is to be extended, the video integrated into ads, the creator content used on other channels or an originally organic post recycled for performance purposes. Without a clear structure of rights and approvals, this is regularly unnecessarily risky.

Reviews, reputation attacks and fake profiles

Not every reputation-related dispute is automatically a classic press law case. The problem often arises directly from the platform logic: fake profiles, identity-related pages, defamatory comments, manipulated reviews, false attributions, copycat accounts or virally spread false claims with a clear channel connection.

Here, social media law is the sensible entry point if platform process, account structure, comment dynamics, notice route and rapid operational containment are the first priority. If, on the other hand, the substantive balancing between statement of fact, opinion, counter-statement, reporting or personality rights forms the main axis, media law or press law usually becomes the more relevant main subject. For systematic reputation protection strategies and digital crisis situations, reputation protection is also a particularly good fit. For review portals or individual reviews, delete a review is often the most direct conversion entry point.

Typical attacks in practice

• fake profiles, identity misuse and copycat accounts
• negative or manipulated reviews with a business-damaging effect
• comment-driven escalation under company posts or creator content
• fake quotes, use of images without consent and virally spread false claims

What should first be classified correctly

• Who is the opposing party: platform, account holder, reviewer or several parties?
• Is it primarily about deletion, injunctive relief, unblocking, correction or preservation of evidence?
• Is there an acute escalation that can make urgent proceedings commercially sensible?
• Is there a clear channel and company connection that makes the damage provable?

What matters in social media reputation cases

If infringing content is only criticised in the abstract, the platform often reacts sluggishly. A precise combination of evidence, ground of infringement, platform connection, risk of repetition and commercial classification is regularly more promising. That is exactly where many first notices fail. For in-depth case patterns, the ITMR articles Social media service liable for fake profiles and BGH on the responsibility of social media platforms for fake news are helpful.

Imprint, privacy notices and prize games

Many social media presences appear operationally sound but already fail on the basics. Business profiles, creator set-ups, campaign landing pages and platform-integrated mechanics in particular need robust mandatory information, comprehensible privacy notices and terms of participation free of contradictions.

This concerns in particular the Anbieterkennzeichnung (provider identification) for profiles used for business, contact and responsibility details, data protection information for lead mechanics, forms, messenger sequences, tracking set-ups and prize games, as well as the clear design of terms of participation, duration, selection mechanics, exclusions and communication channels. For provider identification, Section 5 of the Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG, German Digital Services Act) (opens in a new tab) is particularly relevant. For data processing, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (opens in a new tab) applies.

If a social media question is in truth a general prize game, promotion or direct marketing topic, the more in-depth review regularly lies with advertising law or, for shop and checkout-related mechanics, additionally with e-commerce. For central data protection questions, data protection law is the more relevant main page.

Go-live check for professional social media set-ups

• Is the imprint accessible, linked with a meaningful label and properly integrated on the specific profile or the associated structure?
• Do privacy notices, form logic, tracking and actual platform use fit together?
• Are prize game terms clear, accessible, free of contradictions and consistent with the social media mechanics?
• Is it documented who grants approvals and who decides on complaints, queries or platform measures?

What is particularly often overlooked

The mistake often lies in the operational unsuitability of the information and less often in its complete absence. An unclear link, a reference without a meaningful label, a privacy text without reference to the real campaign mechanics or terms of participation that do not match the actual distribution are often enough to become unnecessarily vulnerable. For integrating an imprint on video-based platforms, the in-depth article Imprint obligation on YouTube is a useful starting point.

Advice with a view to channel, platform and commercial consequences

Social media mandates rarely need merely an abstract legal opinion. What matters is which operational structure is affected, how great the time pressure is, which platform mechanics actually apply and which commercial consequences a mistake or delay triggers.

At ITMR, Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM, Timocin Can, Emma-Marie Kürsch and Otto Weidenkeller are particularly relevant for this area. If you would like to have an account suspension, a campaign, a creator cooperation, a content conflict, a review problem or a social media set-up reviewed before going live, the assessment should take place as early as possible.

Continue to request advice on social media law and .

Key terms

Digital Services Act

EU regulation on digital services with obligations for platforms to state reasons, handle complaints and ensure transparency.

Statement of reasons

Statement of reasons for a moderation decision under Art. 17 DSA.

Labelling

Disclosure of the commercial purpose of a post.

Paid usage

Use of content in paid ads.

User-generated content

Content created by users.

Anbieterkennzeichnung (provider identification)

Imprint obligation under Section 5 DDG.

These terms explain the language used on this page. What matters is always the specific individual case.

Provisions and reliable sources

The following statutory provisions and regulations are cited on this page.

Frequently asked questions on social media law

The most important questions rarely arise on a purely abstract level. In practice, almost everything depends on which channel is affected, how professionally it is used, which contracts or platform mechanics lie behind it and what commercial damage is threatened.

Have a social media case assessed