Is a person responsible for someone else's offensive comment if they liked it: verdict of the Supreme Court of Austria

The Supreme Court of Austria considered an unusual case regarding liability for liking an offensive comment on Facebook. The court had to decide whether a like means support for all accusations against a person and whether it can be grounds for a lawsuit to protect honor, dignity, and business reputation.

Social networks have long become a platform not only for communication but also for legal disputes. While an offensive comment or post can be grounds for a lawsuit, the situation with users' reactions is much more complex. Does pressing the "Like" button mean that a person supports every word in the post? Can a simple like under harsh criticism or insult be considered an infringement on another person's honor and dignity? The Supreme Court of Austria answered these questions by reviewing a case about a like under a Facebook comment and formulated important approaches to evaluating user behavior on social networks.

What caused the dispute

The Supreme Court of Austria in case No. 6 Ob 26/26f concluded that a like placed under a Facebook comment by itself does not mean that the user fully supports all the statements of the comment's author or adopts them.

The dispute arose after a Facebook user posted about a family celebration and shared a photo with his wife. In the post, he wrote that he considers himself lucky because of his marriage to a "wonderful woman."

After that, another user left a comment under the post stating that the author's face "does not show honesty and decency" and that it is "sad" when a person "earns so much money through deceit."

The defendant did not write her own comments but used the "Like" function under this message.

Why the plaintiff considered the like a violation of honor and dignity

The author of the post went to court. He argued that the like under the offensive comment means support for its content and also contributes to the spread of such content through the social network's algorithms. In his opinion, the defendant effectively joined the offensive statements and interfered with his personal non-property rights.

The appellate court agreed with this position. It concluded that a like signals approval of the message's content, can influence the formation of opinions of other users, and therefore is a form of participation in humiliating a person's honor.

What the Supreme Court of Austria said about likes on Facebook

However, the Supreme Court of Austria overturned this decision.

The court emphasized that a like can indeed be considered a form of expression of opinion, as messages on the internet can be conveyed not only by words but also by graphic symbols.

At the same time, when assessing the meaning of a like, it is necessary to consider the entire context of the communication, the content of the original post, the nature of the comment, the relationships between the discussion participants, and the perception of an average social media user.

The Supreme Court noted that a like is a standard symbol offered by the platform itself. Unlike a self-written comment, it has a much less defined meaning. Moreover, users usually perceive an individual like as part of the general mood of the audience, not as a detailed personal position of a specific person.

Practice of the ECHR and courts of other countries regarding likes

The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Melike v. Turkey, which stated that a like on social networks is a common form of freedom of expression and mostly indicates only sympathy for certain information, not an intention to actively disseminate it.

Separately, the Supreme Court cited the position of the Federal Court of Switzerland, which previously noted that the meaning of a like is quite vague. It can mean support for the content of the message, approval of its form, or even just a positive attitude toward the author of the post. The real motives of the user often remain unknown.

Why the court did not see an insult in this particular case

Analyzing the specific circumstances of the case, the Austrian court concluded that the defendant's like demonstrated only some sympathy for the negative reaction to the plaintiff's post or dislike of his public display of family happiness.

At the same time, in the court's opinion, an average user would not perceive such a like as confirmation or support of specific accusations of dishonesty, indecency, or earning money through deceit.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Austria ruled that the content of the like in this situation did not go beyond demonstrating an indefinite antipathy toward the plaintiff or his public boasting of his personal life. Such a reaction does not constitute an infringement on a person's honor or business reputation.

Therefore, the court recognized the defendant's actions as lawful and finally denied the claims to prohibit such actions in the future.

What legal conclusion the Supreme Court of Austria formulated

The Supreme Court of Austria effectively formulated the principle: a simple like under a critical or even offensive comment does not automatically mean joining all the statements made in it. To establish a violation of honor or dignity, it is necessary to evaluate the specific context, the content of the communication, and how such a reaction will be perceived by an average social network user.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.