Purpose
The skill reviews media law obligations under the MStV and state press laws — imprint, separation requirement, journalistic-editorial duties of care — and, on the affected party's side, drafts a counterstatement request, correction and cease-and-desist letters, weighing them against freedom of the press/freedom of expression (Art. 5 I GG). Interfaces: §§ 22, 23 KUG (image), DSA Art. 12 et seq. (platforms), GDPR media privilege Art. 85.
Inputs
- Medium: daily newspaper / magazine / online magazine / broadcasting / telemedium (journalistic-editorial yes/no)
- Registered office / applicable state press law (Art. 30 GG state jurisdiction)
- Specific complaint (statement of fact vs. expression of opinion; publication of image)
- Date of first publication, time of becoming aware (deadline!)
- Client's position: service provider (obligation review) / affected party (response)
- For service provider review: business model, imprint status quo
Sub-agent architecture
Researcher supplies MStV provisions (§§ 18, 19, 20, 22, 78 et seq.), the applicable state press law (in particular counterstatement and information claims), §§ 22, 23 KUG, BGH VI civil senate case law on the general right of personality, BVerfG line on freedom of the press/freedom of expression. Drafter drafts the catalogue of obligations for providers or the counterstatement request/cease-and-desist letter. Reviewer checks the fact/opinion distinction, deadlines, form, currency, relationship to freedom of the press.
Procedure
1. Scope of application
- MStV applies nationwide (state treaty of all Länder); telemedia § 2 II No. 1 MStV.
- Journalistic-editorial telemedia § 19 MStV: increased duties of care.
- State press laws for periodical printed works (tiered according to the publisher's registered office); classic counterstatement, correction, information claims.
- Broadcasting §§ 92 et seq. MStV (licensing).
- Platform interface DSA (EU) 2022/2065 for very large online platforms and search engines.
2. Imprint obligation § 18 MStV
Mandatory content:
- Name and address of the service provider; for legal persons also the authorized representatives,
- Information for rapid electronic contact (email),
- competent supervisory authority (in the case of official licensing),
- Commercial register, register of associations, partnership register with register number,
- for liberal professions: statutory professional title, state, chamber, professional regulations,
- VAT ID No. or business ID No.,
- for journalistic-editorial telemedia: the person responsible within the meaning of § 18 II MStV with name and address.
Requirements: easily recognizable, directly reachable, permanently available (BGH [unverifiziert]).
3. Separation requirement § 22 MStV
Commercial communication must be clearly recognizable as such; editorial content and advertising must be clearly separated (also acoustically/visually in broadcasting; in the telemedia sector labeling "Advertisement" / "Advertising"). Infringement: § 115 MStV administrative fine; interface with the UWG (wettbewerbsrecht).
4. Journalistic-editorial duties of care § 19 MStV
- Duty to research: before dissemination, news must be checked for truth and origin with the care required by the circumstances.
- Principle of truth and objectivity; separation of report and commentary.
- Reference to the Press Code of the German Press Council (not legally binding, but a standard for the duty of care).
5. Right of reply § 20 MStV / State Press Act
Requirements (cumulative — strict catalogue of obligations):
- Statement of fact (no expression of opinion, no advertising, no criminal content). Criterion for differentiation: provability; BVerfG line
[unverifiziert]. - Personal affectedness: the applicant must be individually affected by the statement.
- Legitimate interest in the reply (as a rule indicated).
- Time limit: "without delay, at the latest within 3 months" from knowledge (typical state regulation — wording varies depending on the state press act; § 20 III MStV for telemedia
[unverifiziert – Landesregelung im Einzelfall prüfen]). - Form: in writing, with a handwritten signature, reference to the original communication, reply text of the same scope.
- Scope: not substantially longer than the communication objected to; limited to the specific objection.
- Currency: the objection must not be outdated.
- Appropriate reproduction: right to publication in the same presentation, in the same place.
Prohibited content (example catalogue, depending on the state regulation):
- expression of opinion as a reply,
- advertising content,
- criminal content,
- obviously untrue counter-statement.
6. Ancillary claims: correction / cessation / damages
- Right of correction (under press law, unwritten — settled BGH case law
[unverifiziert]) in the case of demonstrably untrue statements of fact. - Right to cessation §§ 823 I, 1004 BGB by analogy in conjunction with Art. 1 I, 2 I GG (general right of personality).
- Damages § 823 I BGB in conjunction with the general right of personality (substantive); monetary compensation ("pain and suffering") in the case of serious infringement of personality rights (BVerfG/BGH
[unverifiziert]). - Interface §§ 22, 23 KUG in the case of publication of images: requirement of consent § 22; exceptions § 23 (in particular no. 1 "images from the sphere of contemporary history" — graduated protection concept BVerfG "Caroline II" BVerfGE 120, 180
[unverifiziert]).
7. Balancing freedom of the press Art. 5 I GG
- Scope of protection of press/broadcasting/telemedia freedom.
- Limits Art. 5 II GG (general laws, statutory provisions for the protection of youth, right of personal honor).
- Interaction doctrine (Lüth doctrine
[unverifiziert]). Restrictive statutes must be construed in the light of freedom of the press. - For reporting on privacy: BVerfG line, sphere-theoretical (social, private, intimate sphere).
8. Platform / DSA interface
- DSA Art. 16 et seq.: notice-and-action procedure for illegal content.
- DSA Art. 23: national complaint bodies.
- Remnants of NetzDG: still applicable in isolated cases.
9. Supervision
- State media authorities as supervisory authority over broadcasting and journalistic-editorial telemedia.
- Schedule of fines § 115 MStV.
- German Press Council (self-regulation print/online).
Sources and citation style
Mandatory: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.
Statute
- § 18 MStV (telemedia — imprint obligation)
[unverifiziert – aktuelle Konsolidierung prüfen] - § 19 MStV (duties of care)
- § 20 MStV (counterstatement telemedia)
- § 22 MStV (separation of advertising)
- §§ 78 et seq. MStV (telemedia obligations)
- §§ 92 et seq. MStV (broadcasting licensing)
- State press laws (e.g. LPresseG NRW, BayPrG) — state-specific
- § 22 KUG, § 23 KUG
- § 823 BGB, § 1004 BGB
- Art. 5 GG
- DSA Regulation (EU) 2022/2065
- Art. 85 GDPR (media privilege)
Commentaries
- Fechner, Medienrecht, 23rd ed. 2024
[unverifiziert] - Paschke/Berlit/Meyer, Hamburger Kommentar Gesamtes Medienrecht, 4th ed. 2021
[unverifiziert] - Spindler/Schuster, Recht der elektronischen Medien, 4th ed. 2019
[unverifiziert] - Soehring/Hoene, Presserecht, 6th ed. 2019
[unverifiziert] - Wandtke/Ohst, Medienrecht Praxishandbuch, 4th ed. 2024
[unverifiziert] - BeckOK Informations- und Medienrecht/Gersdorf/Paal, as at 2024
Case law ([unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/Beck-Online])
- BVerfG, order of 15.01.1958 – 1 BvR 400/51, BVerfGE 7, 198 – "Lüth" (interaction doctrine)
[unverifiziert] - BVerfG, order of 14.02.1973 – 1 BvR 112/65, BVerfGE 34, 269 – "Soraya" (judicial development of the law on damages for violation of the right of personality)
[unverifiziert] - BVerfG, judgment of 26.02.2008 – 1 BvR 1602/07 et al., BVerfGE 120, 180 – "Caroline II" (graduated protection concept for images)
[unverifiziert] - BVerfG, order of 14.01.1998 – 1 BvR 1861/93 et al., BVerfGE 97, 125 – "Caroline I"
[unverifiziert] - BGH, judgment of 15.11.1994 – VI ZR 56/94, BGHZ 128, 1 – "Caroline von Monaco I" (monetary compensation)
[unverifiziert] - BGH (VI ZS line) on the online archive and the right to be forgotten
[unverifiziert] - ECJ, judgment of 24.09.2019 – Case C-507/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:772 – Google/CNIL (right to be forgotten)
[unverifiziert]
Output format
Variant A — Catalogue of service provider obligations
PFLICHTENPRÜFUNG — MStV / Landespressegesetz
Anbieter: <…> Angebot: <…>
I. Sachverhalt / Angebot
II. Anwendungsbereich (Telemedium / journalistisch-redaktionell / Rundfunk)
III. Pflichtenmatrix
Pflicht Status Norm Befund
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Impressum (Pflichtangaben) [✅/❌] § 18 MStV <…>
Trennungsgebot [✅/❌] § 22 MStV <…>
Sorgfaltspflichten [✅/❌] § 19 MStV <…>
Verantwortlicher § 18 II MStV [✅/❌] <…>
Aufsichtsmeldung [✅/❌] <…>
DSA Notice-and-Action [✅/❌] Art. 16 DSA <…>
IV. Empfehlungen
V. Risikoeinstufung 🟢/🟡/🔴
VI. Quellenverzeichnis
Variant B — Counterstatement application
GEGENDARSTELLUNGSANTRAG
gem. § 20 MStV / § <…> LPresseG <Land>
An die <…>-Redaktion / verantwortlichen Redakteur
<Datum, unverzüglich nach Kenntnis>
In Sachen <Mandant>
Bezug: <Mediumsname>, Ausgabe/URL vom <Datum>, Seite <…>, Artikel
„<Überschrift>"
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
namens und im Auftrag unserer Mandantschaft fordern wir Sie hiermit
auf, folgende Gegendarstellung in der nächsten Ausgabe / unverzüglich
auf derselben URL in derselben Aufmachung zu veröffentlichen:
───────────────── GEGENDARSTELLUNG ─────────────────
In Ihrem Artikel „<…>" vom <Datum> behaupten Sie:
„<wörtliches Zitat der Tatsachenbehauptung>"
Hierzu stelle ich fest:
„<konkrete Tatsachengegendarstellung — gleiche Länge,
keine Meinung, keine Wertung, keine Werbung>"
<Ort, Datum>
<eigenhändige Unterschrift Mandant>
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Rechtsgrundlage: § 20 MStV / § <…> LPresseG <Land>.
Frist: Wir setzen Ihnen Frist bis zum <Datum> zur Bestätigung der
Veröffentlichung. Bei Nichtveröffentlichung werden wir den Antrag
im Wege des § 935, 940 ZPO durchsetzen.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
<Anwalt>
Anlagen: Vollmacht, Belegexemplar
Risks / typical mistakes
- Counterstatement disguised as an expression of opinion → unfounded, no claim.
- Advertising content in the counterstatement → unfounded.
- Deadline "immediately, at the latest 3 months" missed → loss of timeliness → application inadmissible.
- Form (personal signature of the data subject, not of the lawyer) violated → invalid.
- Scope substantially longer than the contested communication → inadmissible.
- Blanket application of the MStV without examination of the relevant state press law for print media → wrong legal basis.
- Imprint obligation review without differentiation journalistic-editorial vs. general telemedium → missing responsible person.
- Publication of an image without KUG review (consent / contemporary history / graduated protection concept).
- Overlooking the GDPR media privilege Art. 85 GDPR in conjunction with state press law / § 23 MStV in the case of purely journalistic processing.
- DSA obligations for VLOP/VLOSE not reflected in platform mandates.