Identifiability in reporting – Objection to the Federal Court of Justice’s overly lenient approach

In many disputes involving defamation, the question arises: Is the person in question identifiable or not? And: To whom are they identifiable? There are many ways this can manifest: mentioning age, occupation, place of residence, or the name of the company where the person works; using altered names or initials; or publishing a photo showing people or places with which the person can be associated.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) takes a very broad approach when determining the recognizability of unnamed individuals in press reporting. It considers “effortless identification” to be sufficient and also takes into account information and findings that do not arise from the reporting itself but only through further research. However, if internet searches, applications of artificial intelligence, and reports in other media are taken into account in this context, this expands the press’s liability in a concerning manner. Correctly, however, the press should only be held accountable if it makes a conscious and independent decision in its own reporting to make the individuals concerned recognizable.

For more on this, see the article “The Identifiability of Individuals in Reporting – A Challenge to the Federal Court of Justice’s Position in Light of Freedom of the Press,” ZUM (Journal of Copyright and Media Law) 2026, 427 ff., as well as, subject to a subscription or fee, on beck online.