Liability for Co-Commenting on Facebook

Aug 20, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) recently examined whether a comment on another individual’s Facebook post could be regarded as an independent act of disseminating a defamatory and harmful factual allegation.

In this instance, the matter pertained to a Facebook post alleging police misconduct during a demonstration. Although the defendant did not share the original post, they commented on it and expressed clear support for the accusations presented. Subsequently, the police officer pursued, among other remedies, a retraction of the statements made against him.

The OGH clarified that a comment on another individual's post may be regarded as an independent act of dissemination. The critical consideration is how such a statement would be interpreted by a reasonable and impartial reader. In this case, the defendant’s comment was found to reference the original post directly and, according to the Court, should be understood as the defendant both endorsing the allegation contained in the post and deeming the police officer culpable. This conduct constituted dissemination under Section 1330 of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB).

The OGH determined that the statement constituted defamation and reputational harm. For a retraction claim, it is not required to demonstrate that actual financial loss has already occurred; it is sufficient if the statement has the potential to negatively affect the individual’s economic position or career progression. In this instance, this was particularly relevant given the alleged violation of official duties by the police officer.

The OGH accordingly directed the defendant to issue a retraction of the erroneous factual assertion and to ensure that this retraction is published on the pertinent Facebook profile for a duration of one month. The fact that the profile was no longer active on Facebook did not alter this directive, as the defendant failed to adequately demonstrate that publication was impossible.

The defendant's plea regarding the statute of limitations was likewise unsuccessful. According to the OGH, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the claimant could have reasonably identified the defendant at an earlier stage without significant effort.

6 Ob 86/25b (26 May 2026)