CAUTION regarding BW7 for new agencies and independents

Almost everyone has probably experienced unpleasant things online at some point. Of course, because many users see the internet as the "lawless space"Where you can do whatever you want and always feel justified, because anonymity reinforces this. Unfortunately, new agencies and independents experience this more often than they'd expect, and caution is advised when using such platforms."

This article isn't about erotic fantasies or escort services, but about a forum that reflects and supports precisely this "lawless space"! It's a... Erotic forum from Baden-Württemberg BW7.

It was precisely in this forum that my agency was portrayed as disreputable! Disreputable in the case that we allegedly sent two written rejections to a gentleman without providing him with any detailed explanation! Naturally, I have addressed this here and also published my email containing the rejections in compliance with GDPR, thus allowing for a counter-statement.

The author of the article never commented on it again, which seemed quite odd, even though he clearly considered us to be untrustworthy. It's worth mentioning, however, that both rejections were explained in detail in the respective emails. Nevertheless, the article took a vehement turn with insinuations, misrepresentations, copyright infringements, and, of course, some slander. Although I provided evidence for everything and refuted the false accusations, it did nothing to change the negative perception of my agency. On the contrary, despite the misrepresentations, insinuations, and false claims, neither the administrator nor the moderators took any action. The entire moderator team even tolerated and supported the misrepresentations.

A planned and agreed-upon game on BW7 began.

A good friend and also a loyal client of my agency commented on the post in the forum. He, too, spoke positively about my agency and couldn't understand the negative tone and portrayal of it. Although—and I emphasize the word "although"—he has no connection to my agency other than bookings, he was immediately accused of using a secondary profile of my agency on his forum. This accusation alone was quite amusing. But the admin team's escalation continued.

Users and moderators even fabricated the claim that Carolin's agency is supposedly part of another agency. I immediately addressed this allegation and clarified it. As a result, the perspective and thinking of the admins, moderators, and users on BW7 are very limited, as has become apparent. They live in their own fantasy world and only believe what they want to believe. Regardless of whether this harms anyone, on BW7 only the opinion of the administrator and their team counts.

He repeatedly emphasized, and also proved through emails, that there was absolutely no connection between him and my agency. The admins and moderators were very unimpressed and clung to their insinuations and conclusions based on their flawed perspective.

The same tactic was also used against Donna Escort on the same forum. Oddly enough, the person who started that post is exactly the same as the one who attacked my agency.

BW7 the power of the sympathizers

It's no secret that both the administrator and his moderators maintain a very "harmonious" relationship with other "established" agencies and houses. Clearly, anything new is seen as competition and must be portrayed negatively, no matter how. Be it agencies, independents, or even new houses, anything new is relentlessly attacked with false claims and insinuations. Of course, because the administrator himself wrote:

We have nothing to reproach ourselves for legally, nor have we, the admins, made any unjustified accusations or insinuations.
We can prove this in a legally sound and GDPR-compliant manner.

Subsequently, we reiterated our concerns about the allegations, even though we provided evidence. However, the administrator team failed to delete the posts containing these allegations, thus completely violating their duty to monitor and control content on the forum.

Subsequently, the administrator personally posted a picture from my agency's page in the forum using one of his other profiles ("secondary profiles") without my permission or consent. I clearly pointed out this legal violation, but again, none of the administrators cared. My posts were gradually censored by the administrator himself after I revealed that he was also using multiple profiles to negatively influence the post.

Another user wrote here:

As far as I know, linking to and embedding third-party content (provided it is not unlawful) does not require a license. Therefore, there is no copyright infringement. Copyright infringement occurs when someone downloads an image (for which they do not have the rights) and re-uploads it elsewhere.

There are already several court rulings on this matter, and the laws state the following:

The general rule is that the Commission no external content such as PHOTOS and/or publish videos may, without that explicit consent has been obtained from the respective author. 

Images on the internet are protected by copyright, meaning that the use of this material is generally determined solely by the respective copyright holder. The fact that a freely accessible website contains images that can be downloaded or linked to does not automatically mean that the copyright holder consents. Written permission is required.

If you want to use a photographer's images on your website, you need their permission. Failure to obtain the image rights always constitutes copyright infringement.

My post and the reference to the secondary profiles were immediately censored by the admin with the following comment:

Changed by Joker (Today at 18:47 Watch) Reason: Indiscretion deleted

But what did I write that led directly to indiscreet censorship? Essentially, just exposing the foul play.

Achso Gaston alias Joker alias MH You can write openly with your normal profile; a second profile is no longer necessary now that we know so much!

What was indiscreet about that? Perhaps showing some members here in the forum that the admin is conducting a witch hunt under false names? That he has recognized the legal loophole and is giving his favorite agencies a platform to defame new agencies and wouldn't even shy away from various criminal offenses?

Honest and true words from another agency

However, I received honest and truthful words from other agencies. Statements like "No agency wants the kind of clients that are on BW7" really impressed me. These agencies also fully informed me about the operator, who he was in cahoots with, and where he had his fingers in the pie. Yes, anyone who learns all this, especially from different sources, quickly understands why he plays this game.

I was also truly fascinated to learn that a user who participated in this witch hunt is in a relationship with another agency director from Stuttgart. But I least expected it from that agency!

Regarding the operator and founder of BW7

What can I say? Despite all the evidence and comments I provided, the admin restricted my profile so I could no longer defend myself. This restriction occurred shortly after I published the other profiles of the administrator, with the following justification:

It's not just embarrassing, it's dangerous. If an agency publishes such indiscretions as this, it's certainly capable of publishing other private data, including that of clients.

We will of course not tolerate such a thing!!

The administrator's wording alone is nothing more than another insinuation and slander. As you can see, the admins don't want details revealed that could incriminate them. This will be deleted immediately. However, false representations, insinuations, slander, and damaging actions will be tolerated by the administrator as long as they don't directly affect him or his moderator team.

Support from users on BW7

Not only agencies contacted me here, but also several users from the BW7 forum called me on my agency number. Just like with the other agencies before, various users congratulated me on standing up against the machinations on BW7. Many of the users also stated that it was well known that the forum administrator tends to overstep his bounds and treats the legal vacuum as his own personal property. As users so aptly put it: "Well, that's BW7 for you," or "You can't expect to find many intellectuals on that forum!" True enough, considering the administrator's behavior and actions.

My appeal to the agencies

If the same thing has happened to you as an agency or independent, or if it happens to you, don't look away! Stand up for yourselves, go to the authorities, and file criminal charges! You can also sue individual users or an entire forum for defamation! Don't just look the other way or let the matter be swept under the rug.

We as an agency distance ourselves completely from such practices! My photographer, through his lawyer, has also initiated copyright infringement proceedings against the BW7 forum today, citing reproduction and distribution rights.

Unfortunately, this is the only way we can publish this on our website, as we have been restricted on the aforementioned forum and our counter-statement is unwelcome. 

Additions:

Addendum on August 30, 2024

On August 30, 2024, the operator and owner of the BW7 forum was served with a written notice of a deletion claim pursuant to Section 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB) based on tort, setting a deadline for compliance.

If a forum and/or network fails to respond appropriately despite being sufficiently informed, it is possible to take action against the forum and/or network itself based on the principle of secondary liability. Secondary liability allows for the holding liable of someone who, without being a direct perpetrator or accomplice, has intentionally and causally contributed to the infringement. The injured parties then have claims against the platform for injunctive relief or removal of the infringing content.

The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), in effect since 2018, allows users to report certain illegal content. Operators are required to remove clearly unlawful content within 24 hours. Companies and/or operators who fail to comply face substantial fines. However, the NetzDG only applies to specific offenses such as incitement to hatred, insult, defamation, slander, and demonstrable defamatory damage to a business.

Unlawful content within the meaning of this law is content within the meaning of paragraph 1 that fulfills the elements of the offense under sections 86, 86a, 89a, 91, 100a, 111, 126, 129 to 129b, 130, 131, 140, 166, 184b, 185 to 187, 189, 201a, 241 or 269 of the Criminal Code and is not justified.

The elements of an offense are those parts of a legal norm that define the conditions for the existence of a criminal offense. They encompass all objective and subjective elements that must be fulfilled for an act to be considered a criminal offense.

The following offenses were committed: Section 185 of the German Criminal Code (insult), Section 186 of the German Criminal Code (defamation), Section 187 of the German Criminal Code (slander), and defamatory damage to a business.

Addendum on August 30, 2024

Naturally, and as expected, the forum administrator's witch hunt continues unabated on BW7. The administrator has failed to comply with the deletion request, clearly highlighting the forum's duty to monitor and control content. This complete failure on the part of the administrator has resulted in numerous agencies, users, and advertising partners now facing uncomfortable questions from authorities, as already mentioned in the letter. A specific, well-known address in Stuttgart will likely prove to be a goldmine for the investigating authorities, given who is illegally engaging in "apartment prostitution" there.

Statement by the administrator on BW7 in a defamatory and damaging manner:

I also have a clear connection to Wolfgang Haage with Riva Escort Stuttgart and E&E Secrets. (Not to be confused with E&E Secrets – THE original)

We at Carolin Escort would like to emphasize once again that the agencies mentioned above have no connection whatsoever with me or my agency. This is also evidenced by the license to operate the agency. This demonstrates once again how the administrator shamelessly exploits the legal vacuum in this forum.

Why is the alleged agency “E&E Secrets – The Original” constantly being emphasized here? This “alleged” agency is the focus of some administrators and moderators and is, of course, protected with safeguards, even though its legitimacy is questionable. There is no website or legal notice for this agency, only a mobile phone number. All advertising is done exclusively through the aforementioned BW7 forum and a WhatsApp status. It's no secret that many of the harassing customers and users book with this very “alleged” model “escort” agency.

Anyone wishing to take a look at the former website of “E&E Secrets – The Original,” before the Prostitutes Protection Act and the licensing requirement for operators came into effect, can use freely available tools on the internet. Unfortunately, it seems that the website of “E&E Secrets – The Original” never had a legal notice (Impressum).

Addendum on August 30, 2024

This morning, another expedited procedure was initiated for the aforementioned reasons and due to the violation of the testing and control regulations. This involved both the domain Register The company based in Germany, as well as the provider of the BW7 domain, based in the Netherlands, have been informed about the investigations in the deletion proceedings. It should be noted that both the domain Register Both the domain and the provider are obligated to take action in cases of legal violations. Register Both the provider and the company are also subject to the duty to examine and monitor in the event of disclosure of legal violations.

Update on August 31, 2024: the Thai BW7 shared apartment 😉

Another suspicious question that arises for me is whether a BW7 shared apartment was established in Thailand. Because upon receiving an email from Administrator (JOKER) This email was sent from his GMX.de address. Thailand, or rather from the area Pak Kret Posted.

Now, the question naturally arises for me: how can moderators and users in the forum put in writing claims that the alleged founder and operator of BW7 has supposedly relinquished control and therefore supposedly has nothing to do with it? Is this self-protection?

The original founder and operator of BW7 is still nicknamed Joker, as it appears, who organizes, supports and promotes this witch hunt.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind thoroughly.

Thailand is by no means bad, on the contrary, especially the City of Udon Thani It is supposed to have a lot to offer.

Addendum on August 30, 2024

A closer look at the terms of service for BW7 reveals that even the administrator and his moderators violate them.

Netiquette

Insults and rudeness towards other members, moderators, or administrators are prohibited. Netiquette (link) applies in the forum. You are obligated to refrain from posting knowingly false, defamatory, hateful, threatening, or otherwise undesirable content. We expect polite and objective contributions.

So, according to the administrator, every user is obligated to "refrain from posting knowingly false, defamatory, hateful, threatening, or otherwise undesirable content"! As you can easily see, this rule is being ignored, as the administrator, their moderators, and the administrator's followers are not adhering to it. The rule goes on to say, "We expect polite and objective posts." In university, this would have earned you a "off-topic" grade. 😉

Another rule that was also completely ignored by the admin team is rule 9:

disputes

Disputes between forum members or with adult entertainment providers are not to be resolved in the forum. Members of the BW7 forum may not gain any advantage through their reporting, and furthermore, they are not “Tester".

Dear Administrator, dear Moderators on BW7, you do realize what you wrote in the rules, right? At a certain age, one can develop a certain type of Alzheimer's and/or dementia. (Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disease in humans, most commonly occurring in people over 65, and characterized by progressive dementia. Initially, mild memory lapses and mood swings occur, and learning and reaction abilities decline. Those affected use simpler words and shorter sentences, or they falter mid-sentence and are unable to finish their thoughts.)

I'm not a neurologist, but certain parallels can be seen here.

However, this also clearly demonstrates once again that both the administrator and the moderators disregard these rules and claim a lawless space for themselves.

But my absolute favorite rule on BW7 is rule 15:

demarcation

Although the administrators and moderators try to delete all illegal posts and posts that violate the forum rules from this forum, it is not possible to check all posts.

All contributions express solely the views of the respective author.

The forum operator cannot be held responsible for the content of the posts.

Users of the BW7 forum are fully responsible for their accounts and posts. The respective owners of linked websites are responsible for their content.

If you suspect a violation of applicable law or the forum rules, please use the "report" function available for every post.

Okay, let's summarize: "Although the administrators and moderators try to delete all illegal posts and posts that violate the forum rules, it's not possible to review every single post." But as the author of such an illegal and violating post, especially if you created it yourself as an administrator or moderator, you should have already checked it for such content when writing it! (See above, Alzheimer's). This clearly demonstrates once again that even the administrator and moderators themselves create, write, and publish illegal and violating posts.

“The forum operator cannot be held responsible for the content of the posts.” This is incorrect, as there have already been several court rulings on this matter where the forum operator was indeed held fully liable. The forum operator is indeed liable if they fail to fulfill their duty to review and monitor content and do not remove illegal and violating posts despite being aware of them. The forum operator has been repeatedly informed of this!

Addendum from 30.11.2024

Since the operator has still not been able to provide any evidence for his statements and claims in this regard, we have now issued a cease and desist letter to the forum. Furthermore, other investigations are currently underway against the operator of BW7.

Counter-statement to the points of the post

1. Regarding the publication of names and data protection: It is noteworthy that the forum operator criticizes the publication of names on the one hand, yet simultaneously allows users, administrators, and moderators to publish names in their own forum. This not only contradicts their own statements but also demonstrates an inconsistent stance regarding data protection and privacy rights. The claim that a name is redacted for data protection reasons seems dubious, as the same sensitivity is clearly not applied to content within their own forum.

It is also worth mentioning that the administrator "Joker" himself posted my cease-and-desist declaration, which includes a penalty clause, in the forum – including an address that is neither publicly accessible to third parties on my website nor anywhere else. This action constitutes a grossly negligent violation of data protection guidelines, especially since "Joker" repeatedly emphasizes the protection of personal data. It is contradictory and questionable that the forum administrator, on the one hand, emphasizes data protection, but on the other hand, discloses sensitive information that should under no circumstances be made public.

This behavior demonstrates that "Joker" either doesn't understand basic data protection laws or deliberately ignores them. It further undermines the credibility of his statements and highlights the lack of professionalism in the moderation and administration of the forum. Such actions clearly show that the administrator is unable to fulfill his obligations in accordance with legal requirements and ethical standards.

2. Regarding notifications and requests for content removal: Already at 27.08.2024 A written request was submitted with detailed information regarding a specific post. This request included clear indications of defamation and slander, supported by evidence. Furthermore, a deadline was set for disclosing the source of the knowingly published false information. The forum operator is obligated to fulfill their duty of care but has, to date, neither responded to the defamation nor removed the content. The claim of allegedly missing citations and references is therefore unfounded, as these have already been provided.

3. Regarding criminal proceedings and the accuracy of the information in the legal notice: The statement that no criminal proceedings are known should be viewed with caution. A possible clarification by the relevant authorities remains to be seen. At the same time, it should be noted that the postal address in the forum's legal notice is apparently incorrect, as several letters sent were returned as undeliverable. This raises doubts about the forum's legal integrity and transparency. A correct and accessible legal notice is not only a legal requirement but also an indicator of trustworthiness.

4. Regarding the cease and desist declaration and the forum's obligations: It is correct that on 10.11.2024 Another cease-and-desist letter, enforceable by penalty clause, was sent, again pointing out the problems in the forum. This letter included a clear deadline. However, the forum operator and moderators have neither responded to the cease-and-desist letter nor fulfilled their obligations. This continued violation of legal and ethical standards demonstrates a lack of willingness to cooperate and to comply with basic legal requirements.

5. Regarding the new forum post and the statement by user “Merlin”:
In the new thread opened by administrator "Joker," user "Merlin" has commented, though "attempted" is probably a more accurate description. The user's statement, "Carolin and her ilk are certainly accurately described as dilettantes," is not only unfounded but also demonstrates the derogatory and unprofessional discussion culture in the forum. It should be noted that this user himself served as a moderator of the forum for a long time until he lost the position due to internal disputes and obvious incompetence.

His assertion, "It's one thing to babble about violations, but quite another to prove them," illustrates how the forum users handle facts: Instead of engaging objectively with substantiated accusations, they attempt to deflect attention from their own violations through derogatory rhetoric and distortion of the facts. It is unequivocally clear that the violations committed (defamation, infringement of personal rights, disregard for data protection regulations) did not originate from my agency, but from the forum itself.

Such statements and the behavior of the user "Merlin" clearly demonstrate that he is a follower who possesses neither the professional competence nor the moral integrity to express a well-founded opinion. His former role as a moderator and his obvious failure in that position underscore his lack of credibility.

This behavior, as well as the overall attitude of the forum, confirms once again that there is no serious discussion of the legal and factual allegations, but rather a deliberately defamatory and unprofessional discussion culture is being promoted.

Counterstatement to the statements of the administrator “Joker”

I would like to comment on the recent statements made by the administrator “Joker” as follows:

1. Plain text name in the original topic:
It is incorrect to claim that no names were published that were not publicly available. The original post already mentioned a name in plain text that was not visible anywhere. I directly requested the administrator to delete this name immediately. This request was negligently ignored.

2. Information transmission:
Your claim that you received no detailed information is astonishing, given that you simultaneously responded to my statements with your provider. The complaint process has been open for three months, and there has been no response from you. Meanwhile, your provider has even escalated the complaint to the next higher authority.

Furthermore, my legal proceedings explicitly required you to provide evidence for your claims:

• What concrete evidence is there that my agency maintains a business relationship with “Riva Escort”?
• Where is your name and address to ensure official delivery?
• Why was your duty to inspect not fulfilled?
• In what way did you, as administrator, contribute to the witch hunt against my agency?

3. Violation of the duty to examine:
My statements in previous posts alone should have legally triggered an obligation on your part to investigate. As the operator, you are obligated to follow up on my claims and demand evidence from users, moderators, and administrators to support their statements. Did you conduct this investigation? No! Instead, the smear campaign against my agency, which you have supported from the very beginning, continued unabated.

You also failed to comply with my request to completely remove all links to my agency from your forum. This clearly demonstrates that you were never interested in reaching a settlement. On the contrary, as an administrator, you disregarded fundamental rights and obligations and thus violated legal regulations.

These continued violations of your legal obligations are unacceptable. I urge you once again to take the appropriate measures and end the harassment campaign against my agency. Should this not occur, I will be forced to take legal action.

here, the Appeal proceedings dated 31.08.2024that the The operator of the forum has demonstrably been opened:
Note: The links in this subsequent complaint procedure have been obscured. However, they were provided to the administrator and operator of the BW7 website during the ongoing complaint procedure. A total of twelve links were presented to the operator and administrator, all of which contained clear legal violations.

Dear Sirs

With this letter, I am initiating the complaint procedure for the following domain registered by you:

Domain name: bw7.com

Registry Domain ID: 22671503_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN

Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.rrpproxy.net

Registration office: Key-Systems GmbH

Registration office IANA ID: 269

Facts of the case as presented by the complainants

On August 28th and 30th, 2024, I informed the operator of the aforementioned domain in writing that a forum post contained various legal infringements against me and my company.

Also on August 30, 2024, I contacted the operator and owner of the aforementioned domain and set a deadline for removing the post I had mentioned from their portal. The operator and owner of the aforementioned domain did not respond to my deadline or my notification of the existing right to have the content deleted.

The legal situation in this matter is clear. In order to take action against the forum operator, they must first be informed of the legal violation. This has already happened several times. If they nevertheless ignore the unlawful post, the operator is liable as if the statement in question were their own. In particular, if the post is insulting, libelous, defamatory, or damaging to business, the domain operator must remove the post containing the false factual assertion immediately.

By making the false statement of fact in this post public and failing to exercise the legal right to have it deleted pursuant to Section 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB) based on tort, the operator and owner of the aforementioned domain supported the unlawful act. Likewise, by publishing the false statement of fact, the operator and owner of the aforementioned domain neglected their duty of examination and control.

The platform operator's obligation to review and delete content can arise from various legal bases, including copyright law, trademark law, competition law, personality rights, as well as criminal and civil law provisions.

• • Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Network Enforcement Act

Unlawful content within the meaning of this Act is content within the meaning of paragraph 1 that fulfills the elements of the offenses under Sections 86, 86a, 89a, 91, 100a, 111, 126, 129 to 129b, 130, 131, 140, 166, 184b, 185 to 187, 189, 201a, 241 or 269 of the Criminal Code and is not justified.

The elements of a criminal offense are the part of a legal norm that defines the conditions for the commission of a crime. They encompass all objective and subjective elements of the offense that must be fulfilled for an act to be considered a criminal offense.

In the present case, the following paragraphs, among others, were considered to have been fulfilled:

• • Section 185 of the German Criminal Code (insult), Section 186 of the German Criminal Code (defamation), Section 187 of the German Criminal Code (slander), copyright infringement and damage to business, intentionally and in multiple ways.

The operator himself used a copyrighted image in his post on his secondary profile, which he was not permitted to use without my written consent. This copyright infringement was also reported to the operator in writing immediately upon discovery. Again, the operator and owner of the aforementioned domain failed to remove the copyrighted image.

If a forum or network fails to respond appropriately despite being sufficiently informed, it is possible to take action against the forum or network itself based on the principle of secondary liability. Secondary liability allows for the holding liable of someone who, without being a perpetrator or accomplice, intentionally and appropriately contributed to the infringement. The injured parties then have claims against the platform for injunctive relief or removal of the infringing material.

My complaint guide includes a letter setting a deadline for the operator and owner of the aforementioned domain.

Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to your terms and conditions. Point 4, paragraph 6:

The customer undertakes to comply with the legal provisions and the guidelines of jugendschutz.net when offering pornographic and/or erotic content as well as services with the intention of making a profit that include pornographic and/or erotic content (e.g. nude pictures, peep shows, etc.).

The customer/operator of the aforementioned domain does indeed make a profit, as advertising on their portal is subject to a fee. The aforementioned domain also lacks the aforementioned youth protection measures and therefore cannot comply with them.

In the aforementioned blog post, various users and moderators, as well as the operator and owner of the aforementioned domain, claim that my agency/company (Carolin Escort) is affiliated with the agencies Riva Escort and/or E&E. This assertion and misrepresentation alone is damaging to my business and also constitutes defamation/slander.

The article itself began with a misrepresentation, which also constitutes defamation.

Link 1

The operator and owner of the aforementioned domain has already been informed. My detailed statement regarding the defamation can be found at [link to statement].

Link 2

The facts have been fully met throughout this entire thread.

The copyrighted image was just removed from my website by my administrator (August 30, 2024). This image was located below the post:

Link 3

included.

I immediately posted a cease and desist letter for copyright infringement, which was in turn published by the operator and administrator of the og domain using his secondary profile.

Link 4

Subsequently, I, as an agency, was also accused and falsely accused of publishing customer data, which never happened. This accusation prompted the administrator (operator and owner) to block my profile, preventing me from posting a rebuttal. This meant that my posts were only published after being censored. I was no longer able to respond to the false claims, defamation, insinuations, and damage to my business.

Link 5

The following post also contains a false statement of fact, as our legal notice is legally compliant and has been approved by the city of Stuttgart:

Link 6

The following posts also contain false factual claims and defamatory statements regarding the imprint.

Link 7

My further immediate statement to counter the false factual claims and defamation can be found here:

Link 8

Link 9

Further false statements of fact, slander, and defamation can be found in this post against me and my agency:

Link 10

Here too, I have once again emphatically pointed out that the operator and owner of the og domain has failed to fulfill his monitoring obligations and has again supported and simultaneously promoted the provocation of his posts.

Link 11

I would also like to remind you that our profile was completely blocked by the administrator on August 30, 2024. Therefore, I can no longer submit a counter-statement regarding the aforementioned matters.

Link 12

Another personality test was conducted here, in which a user's full name was published. This violation was also immediately reported to the operator. The content was not removed.

According to the Cologne Regional Court, the principles regarding the liability of hosting providers also apply to domain registrars (see also: Frankfurt Higher Regional Court).

According to the principles of liability for interference, anyone who, without being the perpetrator, intentionally and with adequate causation contributes in any way to the impairment of the legally protected interest is liable.

However, the principles developed by the Federal Court of Justice regarding the liability of hosting providers are transferable to domain registrars.

Accordingly, registrars have no general obligation to review the content of the domains registered with them. However, if a registrar violates reasonable duties of care – particularly duties of care – they are liable as the infringer and must cease and desist. The scope of these duties of care depends on the individual case. In particular, the function and role of the infringer, as well as the personal responsibility of the individual who caused the infringement, must be considered in the case-by-case assessment.

A domain registrar only has a duty to investigate if it has actual knowledge of the infringement or the underlying facts, i.e., typically only after being informed by the affected party. However, the domain registrar is only obligated to act if the indication of the infringement is so specific that the infringement can be confirmed based on the affected party's claims without further ado, i.e., "without in-depth legal and factual examination."

We demand that the owner and administrator prove to us, by submitting an official letter, that he is right in his claims, which we have repeatedly portrayed as defamation of the administrator and operator.

We, as the provider, would be happy to provide you with evidence of the defamation. However, since the documents are subject to data protection regulations, please provide us with an email address here.

Addendum from 06.12.2024

I sent another confidential email to the BW7 administrator, reiterating the numerous legal violations. I again requested that the forum administrator delete the relevant content, clearly outlining the problematic aspects and requesting prompt removal to prevent further potential issues.