Ben, this sucks but it is not as much a legal home run as you may think. There is a thing called "Störerhaftung" which means even entities who simply relay/spread "unlawful information" (aggregators, search engines etc) can made to take the site off their index. To what extemd this applies here, I asked an expert: my Kagi Research agent 😀
Section 5 and 7 particularly relevant.
[Background: whether the post the actually violates complainer's rights actually does so, is dubious. It's a high ranking politican's son who allegedly beat his wife, and uses daddy's political influence and the legal system to squash any reporting on it, and links in search engines and aggregators]
<agent response>
Here is a thorough legal assessment of this takedown notice under German law.
---
# Legal Assessment of the Takedown Notice
## 1. What the Notice Claims
The sender claims:
- A specific piece of content (a Nostr note) accessible via the aggregator's website "unlawfully identifies" them.
- The Munich Regional Court I (Landgericht München I) issued a judgment on **18 December 2025** (Case No. **26 O 13971/25**) against **Reddit**, prohibiting further dissemination of this content.
- On this basis, the aggregator must remove the content.
---
## 2. The Core Legal Problem: Judgments Only Bind the Parties (Inter Partes)
This is the most fundamental flaw in the notice.
Under German civil procedure law (**§ 322 ZPO**), the binding effect of a court judgment (*materielle Rechtskraft*) is strictly **inter partes** — it only binds the **parties to the case**. 【4】
A judgment against **Reddit** creates **no legal obligation whatsoever** for a Nostr aggregator. The aggregator:
- Was not a party to the Munich proceedings
- Was never served
- Had no opportunity to defend itself
- Cannot be bound by a judgment it had no part in
The notice is therefore **legally misleading** in implying the aggregator is bound by the Reddit ruling. Even if the case is real and the judgment valid, it is simply irrelevant to the aggregator as a matter of German procedural law.
> **Practical note:** No public record of case 26 O 13971/25 was found in any legal database. The case number format is plausible for LG München I, but its existence and content cannot be independently verified. This raises the possibility that the notice is exaggerating or misrepresenting the judgment's scope.
---
## 3. German Law on Aggregator/Search Engine Liability (*Störerhaftung*)
Since the aggregator is not bound by the Reddit judgment, the question becomes: **does the aggregator have an independent legal obligation to remove the content?**
### The Legal Framework
German law does not give search engines and aggregators a statutory safe harbor under the **Telemediengesetz (TMG)** for hyperlinks and location tools — the legislature never extended §§ 8–10 TMG to cover them. 【1】 Instead, their liability is governed by general tort law and a body of BGH case law.
Since **February 2024**, the EU **Digital Services Act (DSA)** has replaced the TMG's liability provisions. Under **DSA Art. 6**, hosting/intermediary providers are not liable for illegal third-party content if they act expeditiously upon obtaining actual knowledge of it. 【2】
### Key BGH Case Law
| Case | Ruling | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| **BGH I ZR 259/00 – *Paperboy*** (2003) | A search/aggregation service linking to third-party content does not infringe by the act of linking alone; deep-linking is permissible | Aggregators are not primary infringers |
| **BGH VI ZR 144/11 – RSS-Feed** (2012) | Embedding an RSS feed is not "adopting" (*zu-eigen-machen*) third-party content; *Störerhaftung* requires a breach of duty of care; if content is removed promptly after a complaint, no injunction claim (*Unterlassungsanspruch*) arises | Notice-and-takedown is the operative standard |
The BGH's RSS-Feed ruling is particularly on point: an aggregator that embeds or displays third-party content **does not make that content its own**, and **Störerhaftung only arises if it fails to act after being notified** of a specific infringement. 【3】<kcite>@www.otto-schmidt.de/blog/it-recht-blog/bgh-storerhaftung-auf-dem-weg-zu-notice-and-takedown-ITBLOG0000704.html#621-626</parameter>
The BGH has also held that the liability of search engines for possibly unlawful expressions in their references should be **lowered** because of the significance of such services for freedom of expression and information. 【1】
---
## 4. The Nostr-Specific Technical Facts Are Legally Significant
The technical background you described is highly relevant:
- The content is **not hosted** by the aggregator — it lives on decentralized Nostr relays.
- The aggregator merely **indexes and displays links** to content on those relays, analogous to a search engine.
- The aggregator likely **cannot delete** the content from the Nostr network; it can only remove its own index entry or display.
Under German law, this matters because:
1. A provider that does not *host* content has **even weaker liability** than one that does.
2. The aggregator is closer to a **pure search engine** (Paperboy doctrine) than a hosting provider.
3. The aggregator is not "making the content its own" (*zu-eigen-machen*) by aggregating public relay data.
---
## 5. What the Notice *Does* Legally Accomplish
Despite its flaws, the notice is **not entirely without legal effect**:
> ⚠️ **This notice constitutes formal "knowledge" (*Kenntnis*) under German law.**
From the moment the aggregator receives this notice, it can no longer claim ignorance of the alleged infringement. Under the *Störerhaftung* doctrine and the DSA's notice-and-takedown mechanism:
- If the aggregator **fails to act** after receiving this notice, and a German court later finds the content unlawful, the aggregator **could become liable** for continued display.
- The aggregator should therefore **assess the merits** of the underlying claim (is the content actually unlawfully identifying the person under German personal rights law?).
---
## 6. Summary Assessment
| Issue | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Is the aggregator bound by the Reddit judgment? | **No.** Judgments are inter partes; the aggregator was not a party. |
| Does the aggregator host the content? | **No.** It aggregates from public Nostr relays — analogous to a search engine. |
| Is the aggregator a primary infringer? | **Very unlikely.** BGH *Paperboy* doctrine protects aggregation/linking. |
| Does the notice create any legal obligation? | **Yes, conditionally.** It triggers the notice-and-takedown mechanism. The aggregator now has knowledge and must assess the claim. |
| Is the content actually unlawful? | **Unknown — must be assessed independently.** The notice's claim that it "unlawfully identifies" the person needs to be evaluated on its merits under German *Persönlichkeitsrecht* (§§ 823, 1004 BGB). |
| Is the notice legally sound? | **Largely not.** It misrepresents the effect of the Reddit judgment on third parties and conflates hosting with aggregation. |
---
## 7. Recommended Response
The aggregator should:
1. **Not simply comply** based on the Reddit judgment alone — it has no binding force here.
2. **Independently assess** whether the content actually violates German personal rights law (*allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht*, §§ 823 I, 1004 BGB).
3. If the content is **clearly unlawful** (e.g., doxxing, false statements of fact), remove the index entry from the aggregator's display to avoid *Störerhaftung*.
4. If the content is **not clearly unlawful**, respond in writing that the aggregator is not bound by the Reddit judgment, is not a hosting provider, and operates as an aggregator/search engine under the BGH *Paperboy* doctrine and DSA Art. 6.
5. **Seek German legal counsel** if the plaintiff escalates, as personal rights (*Persönlichkeitsrecht*) claims in Germany can be pursued aggressively and courts can issue preliminary injunctions (*einstweilige Verfügungen*) quickly.
