- 11 - As at: 26/01/2021 11:40

Version: 26/01/2021 11:40

1. ------IND- 2021 0039 D-- EN- ------ 20210208 --- --- PROJET

Draft Act of the Federal Government

Draft Act amending the Network Enforcement Act) )

Dated ...
- 14 - Last updated: 17/6/2021 15:26

Last updated: 17/6/2021 15:26

Act to amend the Network Enforcement Act,

Dated 03 June 2021

The Bundestag has adopted the following Act:

Article 1
Article 1

Amendment to the Network Enforcement Act

The Network Enforcement Act of 1 September 2017 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 3352), last amended by … [Article 7 of the Act to Combat Right-Wing Extremism and Hate Crime, Bundesrat document 339/20] is amended as follows:

In § 1(2), the words ‘§§ 2 to 3a’ are replaced by the words ‘§§ 2 to 3b’.
The Network Enforcement Act of 1 September 2017 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 3352), last amended by Article 7 of the Act of 30 March 2021 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 441), further amended by Article 15 of the Act of 30 March 2021 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 448) is amended as follows:

In § 1(2), the words ‘„§§ 2 and 3“’ are replaced by the words ‘„§§ 2 to 3b and 5a“b’.

§ 2(2) is amended as follows:

Point 2 is replaced by the following points 2 and 3:

‘2. The nature, basic outline of the functioning and scope of any procedures used to automatically recognise content that is to be removed or blocked, including general information on the training data used and the review of the results of these procedures by the provider, as well as information on the extent to which scientific and research groups are supported in the evaluation of these procedures,
‘2. The nature, basic outline of the functioning and scope of any procedures used to automatically recognise content that is to be removed or blocked, including general information on the training data used and the review of the results of these procedures by the provider, as well as information on the extent to which scientific and research groups are supported in the evaluation of these procedures and were given access to information from the provider for this purpose,

3. Description of the mechanisms for the transmission of complaints about unlawful content, description of the decision criteria for the removal and blocking of unlawful content and description of the review procedure, including the sequence of the review as to whether unlawful content is at hand or whether contractual provisions between provider and user are being violated,’.


The previous point 7 becomes point 8 and the words ‘according to the total number as well as’ are inserted after the word ‘led,’ and a comma and the words ‘which step in the test sequence pursuant to point 3 led to the removal or blocking’ are inserted after the words ‘users took place’.

The previous point 8 becomes point 9 and is worded as follows:

‘9. the respective number of complaints about unlawful content that resulted in the removal or blocking of the unlawful content within 24 hours, within 48 hours or within a week of receipt, or at a later time, additionally broken down by complaints from complaints offices and users as well as broken down according to the reason for the complaint,’.
The previous subparagraph 8 becomes subparagraph 9 and is worded as follows:

‘9. the respective number of complaints about unlawful content that resulted in the removal or blocking of the unlawful content within 24 hours, within

48 hours or within a week of receipt, or at a later time, additionally broken down by complaints from complaints offices and users as well as broken down according to the reason for the complaint,’.

The previous point 9 becomes point 10 and the full stop at the end is replaced by a comma.


14. other measures by the provider to protect and support those impacted by unlawful content,

15. a summary with a tabular overview showing the total number of complaints received about unlawful content, the percentage of content removed or blocked in response to these complaints, the number of appeals pursuant to § 3b(1) sentence 2 and § 3b(3) sentence 1 respectively, and the percentage of decisions changed based on these appeals compared with the corresponding numbers for the two previous reporting periods, together with an explanation of significant differences and possible reasons for them,
15. a summary with a tabular overview showing the total number of complaints received about unlawful content, the percentage of content removed or blocked in response to these complaints, the number of appeals pursuant to § 3b(1)(2) and § 3b(3)(1) respectively, and the percentage of decisions changed based on these appeals compared with the corresponding numbers for the two previous reporting periods, together with an explanation of significant differences and possible reasons for them,

16. Explanation of the provisions in the provider’s general terms and conditions on the permissibility of disseminating content on the social network used by the provider for contracts with consumers,


§ 3 is amended as follows:

In paragraph 1, sentence 2, the words ‘while perceiving the content’ are added after the word ‘a’ and a comma and the words ‘easy to use’ are added after the word ‘attainable’.
In paragraph 1(2), the words ‘while perceiving the content’ are added after the word ‘a’ and a comma and the words ‘easy to use’ are added after the word ‘attainable’.

Paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

In point 3(b) the words ‘the social network’ are replaced by the words ‘the social network provider’.
In subparagraph 3(b), the words ‘the social network’ are replaced by the words ‘the social network provider’.

Points 4 and 5 are worded as follows:

‘4. in the event of removal, secures the content for evidence and for this purpose saves it for a period of ten weeks within the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1) and Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1; L 263, 6.10.2010, p. 15) as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69),
‘4. in the event of removal, secures the content for evidence and for this purpose saves it for a period of ten weeks within the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (’Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1) and Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1; L 263, 6.10.2010, p. 15) as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69),

5. to inform the complainant and the user for whom the contested content was stored about each decision without delay, and in doing so


In point 3, the word ‘provides,’ is replaced by the words ‘provides at the request of the complainant and at the request of the user for whom the contested content has been saved, and’.

Point 4 is repealed.
Subparagraph 4 is repealed.

Point 5 becomes point 4.


‘It shall give the central supervisory authority of the Federal States for the protection of minors from harmful media the opportunity to comment before the decision on recognition. The decision can be issued with additional conditions. A time limit should not be less than five years.’

The following paragraphs 8 and 9 are added after paragraph 7:
After paragraph 7, the following paragraphs 8 and 9 are added:

‘(8) The recognised self-regulation body must immediately inform the administrative authority mentioned in § 4 of changes in the circumstances relevant to the recognition and other information provided in the application for recognition.


‘(8) Law enforcement authorities may, for the purposes of a general discussion with social networking providers on the application of paragraphs 1 to 7, process the personal data necessary for that purpose in a pseudonymised form.’

The following §§ 3b to 3f are added after § 3a:
The following §§ 3b to 3f are added before § 4:

‘§ 3b

Appeal procedure

The provider of a social network shall have an effective and transparent procedure in accordance with paragraph 2 by which both the complainant and the user for whom the content complained about was stored can obtain a review of a decision to remove or block access to content (original decision) taken on the basis of a complaint about unlawful content, with the exception of the cases referred to in § 3(2) sentence 1(3)(b). The review is only required if the complainant or the user for whom the content complained of was stored submits a request for review within two weeks of being informed of the original decision, stating the reasons (appeal). For this purpose, the social network provider must provide an easily recognisable procedure that enables easy electronic contact and direct communication with it. The means of contact must also be addressed in the information as per § 3(2) sentence 1(5)(b).
The provider of a social network shall have an effective and transparent procedure in accordance with paragraph 2 by which both the complainant and the user for whom the content complained about was stored can obtain a review of a decision to remove or block access to content (original decision) taken on the basis of a complaint about unlawful content; the exception is the cases referred to in § 3(2) sentence 1(3)(b). The review is only required if the complainant or the user for whom the content complained of was stored submits a request for review within two weeks of being informed of the original decision, stating the reasons (appeal). For this purpose, the social net

work provider must provide an easily recognisable procedure that enables easy electronic contact and direct communication with it. The means of contact must also be addressed in the information as per § 3(2) sentence 1(5)(b).

The procedure as per paragraph 1, sentence 1 shall ensure that the social network provider,


Complainants and users for whom the contested content has been saved can call an arbitration body within their area of competence if an appeal procedure pursuant to § 3b has previously been carried out or the decision as per § 3(6)(3) has been reviewed and the social network provider takes part in the arbitration by this arbitration body in general or in individual cases. If the provider takes part in the arbitration, he may send the arbitration body the contested content, information on the time of sharing or provision of the content and the extent of dissemination, as well as contents in recognisable connection to the content, if this is necessary for the arbitration procedure; in the case of an appeal to the arbitration body by the complainant, the contact details of the user for whom the contested content has been saved may be transmitted and, in case of an appeal to the arbitration body by the user for which the contested content has been saved, the contact details of the complainant may also be transmitted. The arbitration body is authorised to process the relevant personal data if this is necessary for the arbitration procedure; disclosure of the personal data of the complainant and the user for whom the contested content was saved is excluded.

Participation in arbitration procedures is voluntary. The right to appeal to the courts remains unaffected. The Consumer Dispute Resolution Act of 19 February 2016 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 254, 3 1039), as amended by Article 1 of the Act of 30 November 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 1942) should not be applied.
Participation in arbitration procedures is voluntary. The right to appeal to the courts remains unaffected. The Consumer Dispute Resolution Act of 19 February 2016 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 254, 1039), as amended by Article 1 of the Act of 30 November 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 1942) should not be applied.

§ 3d


video sharing platform services are

telemedia, the main purpose or essential function of which is to make broadcasts or user-generated videos for which the service provider has no editorial responsibility available to the general public, in which the service provider determines the organisation of the broadcasts or user-generated videos, including by automatic means,
telemedia, the main purpose or essential function of which is to make broadcasts or user-generated videos for which the service provider has no editorial

responsibility available to the general public, in which the service provider determines the organisation of the broadcasts or user-generated videos, including by automatic means,

separable parts of telemedia, if the separable part has the main purpose specified in (a),


For providers of video sharing platform services that have fewer than two million registered users in Germany, this Act only applies if the Federal Republic of Germany is the country of domicile or is deemed to be the country of domicile in accordance with § 3d(2) and (3). This Act only applies to them with regard to user-generated videos and broadcasts in accordance with § 3d(1), points 2 and 3, which have content that meets the criteria for an offence as defined by §§ 111, 130(1) or (2), §§ 131, 140, 166 or 184b of the Criminal Code and is not justified. By way of derogation from § 1(2), these providers of video sharing platform services are exempt from the obligations under § 2, § 3(2), sentence 1, points 3 and 4, as well as (4) and § 3a.

With respect to the user-generated videos and broadcasts mentioned in paragraph 2, sentence 2, the obligations under §§ 2, 3 and 3b only apply to video sharing platform service providers for which a Member State other than the Federal Republic of Germany is or is considered to be the country of domicile in accordance with §§ 3d(2) and (3) on the basis and in the scope of an order from the authority named in § 4. The order may only be issued if the requirements of § 3(5) of the Telemedia Act of 26 February 2007 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 179), last amended by … [Article 5 of the Draft Act to Combat Right-Wing Extremism and Hate Crime, Bundesrat document 19/17741], have been met, and in observance of the procedural steps required in accordance therewith. The administrative authority named in § 4 can commission a body to check whether the conditions of § 3(5) sentence 1 of the Telemedia Act have been met.
With respect to the user-generated videos and broadcasts mentioned in paragraph 2, sentence 2, the obligations under §§ 2, 3 and 3b only apply to video sharing platform service providers for which a Member State other than the Federal Republic of Germany is or is considered to be the country of domicile in accordance with §§ 3d(2) and (3) on the basis and in the scope of an order from the authority named in § 4. The order may only be issued if the current requirements of § 3(5) of the Telemedia Act of 26 February 2007 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 179), last amended by Article 12 of the Act of 30 March 2021 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 448) have been met, and in observance of the procedural steps required in accordance therewith. The administrative authority named in § 4 can commission a body to check whether the conditions of § 3(5) sentence 1 of the Telemedia Act have been met.

If this Act applies to the provider of a video sharing platform service in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 3 with regard to the user-generated videos and broadcasts referred to in paragraph 2, sentence 2, it will be obliged to reach an effective agreement with its users that the distribution of the user-generated videos and broadcasts named in paragraph 2, sentence 2 is prohibited.


Paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

In point 2, the words ‘or § 3b(1) sentence 1’ are inserted after the specification ‘Sentence 1’ and the words ‘or for a review of a decision’ are inserted after the word ‘have’.

In point 3, the words ‘or § 3b(1) sentence 3’ are inserted after the specification ‘Sentence 2’.
In point 2, the words ‘or § 3b(1) sentence 1’ are inserted after the words ‘sentence 1’ and the words ‘or for a review of a decision’ are inserted after the word ‘have’.

In point 3, the words ‘or § 3b(1) sentence 3’ are inserted after the words ‘sentence 2’.

Point 6a becomes point 7.


In paragraph 2(1), the words ‘points 7 and 8’ are replaced by the words ‘points 8 to 9’.

The following § 4a is inserted after § 4:
After § 4, the following § 4a is inserted:

‘§ 4a


In the administrative procedure pursuant to paragraph 2, the social network provider shall provide the administrative authority referred to in § 4 on its request with information on the measures taken to implement this Act, the number of registered users in Germany and the complaints about unlawful content received in the past calendar year; the representatives of the provider, as well as in the case of legal entities, companies and unincorporated associations, the persons appointed by law or the articles of association, are required to disclose the requested information on behalf of the company. The request for information must be proportionate. If natural persons are obliged to cooperate in accordance with sentence 1, they must also disclose facts that may result in prosecution for a criminal offence or an administrative offence if it is otherwise difficult or unlikely to obtain the information. However, information provided by a natural person pursuant to sentence 1 may only be used in criminal proceedings or in proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences against said person or one of the relatives specified in § 383(1)(1) to (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure with the consent of said person. Information provided in accordance with sentence 1 may only be used against the provider in proceedings for setting a fine in accordance with § 30 of the Code of Administrative Offences with the consent of the provider or the person who has given the information as a result of their obligation under sentence 1.

Witnesses are obliged to testify in the administrative procedure under paragraph 2. The witness may refuse to disclose in case of questions which, if answered, would place the witness himself or one of the relatives described in § 383(1)(1) to (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure at risk of criminal prosecution or proceedings pursuant to the Code of Administrative Offences. Otherwise, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the obligation to testify as a witness shall apply accordingly. The administrative authority referred to in § 4 must inform the witness of his right to refuse to testify before the hearing.’
Witnesses are obliged to testify in the administrative procedure under paragraph 2. The witness may refuse to disclose in case of questions which, if answered, would place the witness himself or one of the relatives described in § 383(1)(1) to (3)

of the Code of Civil Procedure at risk of criminal prosecution or proceedings pursuant to the Code of Administrative Offences. Otherwise, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the obligation to testify as a witness shall apply accordingly. The administrative authority referred to in § 4 must inform the witness of his right to refuse to testify before the hearing.’

§ 5 is amended as follows:


Paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

In sentence 1, the words ‘towards the administrative authority referred to in § 4’ are inserted after the word ‘domestic’.
In sentence 1, the words ‘towards the administrative authority referred to in § 4’are inserted after the word ‘domestic’.

The following sentences are added:

‘The administrative authority referred to in § 4 keeps a list of authorised recipients. It shall provide information on this to domestic law enforcement agencies upon request.’

The following § 5a is inserted after § 5:

Ԥ 5a

Information for scientific research

For the purposes of this provision, a researcher is any natural or legal person carrying out scientific research.

A researcher may request qualified information from the provider of a social network on:

the use and concrete operation of methods for the automated detection of content to be removed or blocked, in particular the nature and scope of technologies used and the purposes, criteria and parameters for their programming and the data used;

the distribution of content that has been the subject of complaints about illegal content or which has been removed or blocked by the provider, in particular the corresponding content and information about which users have interacted with the content in what way.

Information referred to in paragraph 2 may only be required to the extent that it is necessary for projects of scientific research in the public interest on the nature, scope, causes and effects of public communication on social networks and the handling of providers.

Information may only be provided if the researcher presents a protection concept to the provider of the social network. The protection concept includes:

a description of the information required for the research purposes referred to in paragraph 3;