Ministerial draft bill to combat digital violence published

New obligations for Providers of Online Services and Internet Access Providers in Germany

With the ministerial draft bill, published on 16 April 2026, of an act to strengthen civil and criminal protection against digital violence by the Federal Ministry of Justice, the governing coalition is pursuing an undertaking from its coalition agreement that has recently attracted considerable public attention. The initiative aims to close legal and practical enforcement gaps in combating and enforcing the law against violence in the “digital space,” with examples including hate speech, deepfakes, doxing, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking. To improve the protection of affected individuals, the ministerial draft provides for the introduction of three new criminal offenses and for broader civil‑law recourse against providers of online services and internet access providers under the planned Act to Combat Digital Violence ("GgdG‑E"). The latter field is already strongly shaped by European digital regulation framework within the internal market, with the Digital Services Act ("DSA") standing out in particular.

The ministerial draft acknowledges this but concludes that the planned amendments or additions to German law alone are compatible with Union law. However, even a glance at the proposed provision on the suspension of user accounts in social networks raises the question whether that assessment is correct. 

The ministerial draft at a glance

The criminal‑law pillar of the ministerial draft would add three new offenses to the Criminal Code (StGB): violation of privacy by taking images (Section 184k), violation of personality rights through deceptive content (Section 201b), and unauthorized surveillance by means of information or communication technology (Section 202e). These provisions are aimed at addressing harmful digital behaviors that the drafters view as insufficiently covered by existing law.

The civil‑law pillar of the ministerial draft – the Draft Act to Combat Digital Violence – provides duties for service providers, namely providers of online platforms, web hosting, or cloud hosting services, and for internet access providers, to act upon application by the affected individuals and on the basis of a judicial order issued by the Regional Courts (Section 8(1) GgdG‑E). Under Section 2 GgdG‑E, these entities would be obliged to disclose certain data necessary to enforce civil‑law claims against a user.

The data categories include, in particular, the user’s identity, the IP addresses at the time of the infringement, and – for dynamic IP addresses – the IP address at the time of serving of the judicial order, as well as a copy of the challenged content.  For this purpose, where there are sufficient indications of an infringement, the court may also issue orders to preserve evidence (Section 3 GgdG‑E). An “infringement” is defined as the objective, unjustified fulfillment of the elements of certain statutory offenses under the Criminal Code (StGB), the German Art Copyright Act (KUG), and the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG) (Section 1(1) GgdG‑E).  The user must be informed by the service provider of the pending proceedings and be involved in them (Section 6 GgdG‑E), and he or she as well as the other parties to the proceedings may be represented by certain civil society organizations (Section 7 GgdG‑E).

Potential frictions with EU digital regulation framework: account suspensions under the GgdG‑E and the DSA

Finally, the ministerial draft contemplates a claim by affected persons against service providers for the suspension of user accounts in social networks (Section 4 GgdG‑E).

A measure with at least a similar regulatory scope appears in Article 23(1) DSA, under which providers of online platforms are obliged to suspend, temporarily, the provision of their services to users engaging in abusive conduct. As a directly applicable regulation, the DSA seeks full harmonization of “rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment” and the “proper functioning of the internal market” (Article 1(1) DSA). National rules that diverge from or add to this harmonized framework risk conflict.  Such a conflict may arise with regard to Section 4 GgdG‑E which envisages less stringent conditions for account suspension than Article 23(1) DSA.

Under Article 23(1) DSA, suspension is warranted only if a user frequently provides manifestly illegal content, whereas under Section 4 GgdG‑E a claim to suspend an account could arise already upon a first infringement, provided this is necessary to prevent further infringements.  Section 4(4) sentence 3 GgdG‑E clarifies that measures under Article 23 DSA remain possible alongside the national claim; however, that clarification would likely not dispel the underlying conflict.

Because of this divergence, service providers in Germany would face different claims than in other Member States, undermining the DSA’s objective of a uniform framework within the internal market.  Against this backdrop, the GgdG‑E explanatory memorandum maintains that the DSA does not exclude civil‑law claims for suspension between private parties; whether that argument holds, for example in view of users’ right to compensation under Article 54 DSA, would ultimately have to be decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Outlook: legal uncertainty instead of effective protection?

The ministerial draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice operates at the boundary between national legislation and EU law harmonized digital regulation framework, raising the question whether it uses a margin of discretion left to Member States by the EU legislator or instead encroaches on an area fully harmonized by the DSA.  This question arises independently of the undoubtedly commendable and important policy goal of ensuring effective protection for affected individuals on the internet.

These concerns are not new and were already discussed following publication of the Ministry’s initial key issues paper. It is not unlikely that the European Commission will raise them over the course of the notification procedure that the draft bill would still have to undergo at a later stage.  Nor would it be the first time a German legislator, particularly in the field of digital regulation, proceeded despite Commission concerns, with the practical result primarily being years of legal uncertainty.