Media reports about highly personal life circumstances touch upon the core area of privacy. Reports about health crises, exceptional psychological situations, or suicide attempts are particularly sensitive. If several such reports are published in quick succession, the additional question arises whether each publication causes separate damage or whether there is a single, overall loss. The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) recently addressed the scope of non-material damages under Section 87 Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act (UrhG) and the conditions for joint and several liability of multiple media companies.
The plaintiff was formerly a member of the National Council and an official of a political party. After his resignation from the party in the spring of 2022, the first defendant (media owner of the print edition of a daily newspaper) and the second defendant (media owner of the online portal of this daily newspaper) reported several times in August and September 2022, with varying content and using a photograph, on an alleged suicide attempt by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff considered this reporting a serious violation of his legitimate interests. It was not a matter of political criticism or objective reporting about his former position, but rather an alleged highly personal incident. Exceptional health and psychological situations regularly fall within the particularly protected sphere of privacy.
Following the conclusion of a settlement agreement, the plaintiff asserted claims for non-material damages against both the first and second defendants pursuant to Section 87 Paragraph 2 of the German Copyright Act. The question arose as to whether the individual publications should be assessed separately or whether the interconnected reporting resulted in a single, unified non-material damage.
The Supreme Court (OGH) first clarified that in cases of multiple publications concerning the same infringement, an overall assessment is required if there is a close factual and temporal connection between the individual articles. In the specific case, the court affirmed a single, unified non-material damage because the reporting concerned the same set of circumstances, was closely related in time, and constituted a coherent media presentation as a whole.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court (OGH) assumed joint and several liability for the media companies involved. The decisive factor was that the individual contributions, taken as a whole, had to be assessed as a single, unified incident and resulting damage, and could therefore be attributed to all parties involved. Crucially, what matters is not merely an organizational or corporate connection within a media group, but rather the actual participation in a single, damage-causing event.
This decision is significant for media law and the protection of personal rights. A series of reports can constitute a single, unified loss, particularly if they concern the same highly personal matter. Media outlets should therefore consider whether subsequent reports exacerbate an existing violation of personal rights. For those affected, it may be advantageous in legal proceedings to present the series of reports as a single, unified loss.
Supreme Court 26.03.2025, 6 Ob 32/25m