A shitstorm can cause significant non-material damage – but not every single post automatically justifies high compensation. The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) clarified that a shitstorm must be considered as a whole.
The plaintiff worked as a group inspector for the police. A post was published on Facebook that combined video clips of an official intervention with accompanying text. The post was shared by numerous people. The defendant also shared the post on his own Facebook profile for an extended period. Subsequently, he removed the post, published a retraction, and acknowledged the corresponding claims. He also made a settlement payment in media law matters. Nevertheless, the plaintiff demanded further damages. He argued that the defendant had deliberately participated in a sensationalist "shitstorm" and thereby contributed to the significant personal hardship. Ultimately, the plaintiff sought to claim similar amounts from numerous other parties involved.
The Supreme Court (OGH) reaffirmed its established case law on shitstorms as collective phenomena. The particular intensity of such an attack lies precisely in the fact that numerous individuals simultaneously or successively target a single person. This results in mass public shaming, often exacerbated by the sheer number of posts and the sometimes anonymous participation. Therefore, the entire event must be considered when assessing non-pecuniary damages. According to Section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the amount of damages must be determined by evaluating the specific circumstances. The lower courts considered, among other things, the sleep disturbances, anxieties, and the feeling of comprehensive public humiliation described by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court deemed the awarded compensation of EUR 3,200 justifiable under the given circumstances. The plaintiff's additional alternative claim was also unsuccessful. The mere finding that the right to confidentiality of personal data had been violated, in the Supreme Court's view, concerned only the legal assessment of an action and not a legally declaratory legal relationship.
The decision demonstrates that courts take the consequences of a social media backlash very seriously. The large number of participants can significantly increase the intensity of the impact and lead to substantial non-material damages. At the same time, the collective effect of a social media backlash does not mean that a high claim for damages can be arbitrarily multiplied against each individual participant. A comprehensive assessment of the specific circumstances and any redress already provided remains crucial.
Supreme Court 30.06.2026, 6 Ob 36/25z