German court fines YouTube 100k USD for not reinstating deleted video
welt.de
welt.de
>On April 20, the court ruled that YouTube had to put the video about corona protests in Switzerland back online immediately. The platform did not comply with this until May 14, 2020.
>YouTube had deleted the said video at the end of January with reference to its "Policy on medical misinformation about COVID-19". However, the court rejected this. Among other things, it came to the conclusion that the amended guidelines had not been effectively incorporated into the contract with the account operator. An amendment contract is required for this. The mere indication that there may be changes in the future is not enough.
Does this logic apply elsewhere, that terms of service weren't amended correctly, or is it a peculiar legal standard for this jurisdiction?
I've seen terms of service that said "we'll change these terms from time to time; check back here to see the amended terms". As I read that, they could change the terms on a moment's notice, not tell anyone, and the changes are binding. A German court might well say that that sentence is void ("unwirksam") because it's not reasonable to require users to conform to something like that, and therefore the relationship between the operator and a user has to be governed by the terms of service that the user read.