Austrian Supreme Court Rules Social Media “Like” Doesn’t Automatically Constitute Defamation
The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) has clarified that a social media “like” appended to a comment does not automatically constitute defamation or reputational harm, according to a ruling analyzed in a recent legal case. The decision addresses the evolving legal boundaries of digital communication and the interpretation of symbolic online reactions.
Case Background: Social Media Post and Contested Reaction
The case centered on a Facebook post shared by an individual documenting a family event. A third party commented on the post, accusing the poster of insincerity and hypocrisy, stating, “From the face of the poster, neither sincerity nor decency is evident; it is sad that money is made through lies.” The defendant, who had “liked” the comment, was accused of endorsing its content and contributing to reputational damage.
The plaintiff argued that the “like” constituted an endorsement of the comment’s allegations, which they claimed were “ehrenrührig” (honour-damaging). The defendant contested the claim, asserting that a “like” merely expressed personal agreement without affirming the comment’s substance.
Court’s Legal Analysis: Context and Symbolic Meaning
The OGH emphasized that the interpretation of a “like” must consider the broader context, including the number of views, the relationship between users, and cultural norms. The court noted that 77 users viewed the “like,” meeting the threshold for “Mindestpublizität” (minimum publicity) under Austrian law.
However, the court ruled that a “like” is not an explicit endorsement of a comment’s content. The OGH highlighted that the “like” symbol is a standardized, automated reaction, not an individualized statement.
Key Legal Precedents and Comparative Insights
The ruling drew on the Swiss Federal Court’s (Bundesgericht) 2019 decision, which deemed “likes” as “diffus and ohne verbindlicher Resonanz” (diffuse and non-binding). The OGH also referenced the ECtHR’s 2019 Malik v. Turkey case, which recognized “like” buttons as expressions of interest rather than affirmations of content.
The court further noted that the defendant’s “like” occurred in response to a post celebrating a family member’s marriage, which the plaintiff used to glorify their spouse. The defendant’s reaction was characterized as “unspezifischen Antipathie” (general antipathy) rather than a direct endorsement of the comment’s allegations.
Implications for Digital Communication and Legal Standards
The decision highlights the distinction between symbolic online actions and explicit statements of opinion.
The case also raises questions about the legal liability of users who engage with controversial content.
Worth a look