Case Summary and Outcome

The Berlin Regional Court II granted a preliminary injunction ordering X (formerly Twitter) to provide Democracy Reporting International (DRI) unrestricted access to publicly available data on its platform. The case arose after X repeatedly denied DRI’s requests to access research data in advance of the Bundestag (Parliament) elections held on February 23, 2025, despite the organization meeting the eligibility criteria under Article 40(12) of the Digital Services Act (DSA). Given the urgency of the electoral context, DRI argued that further delays would undermine its research and the transparency of online political communication. The Court found that X’s refusal to provide access posed a concrete risk to DRI’s research, particularly as the elections were imminent. It ruled that the urgency of the matter justified injunctive relief under the German Code of Civil Procedure, as waiting for a final ruling would render the right to access the data ineffective. Accordingly, the Court ordered X to grant DRI immediate access to the requested data until February 25, 2025—thus ensuring that the organization could continue monitoring political discourse and disinformation trends during the electoral period.

Facts

On February 4, 2025, Democracy Reporting International (DRI), a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of democratic governance, filed an application before the Berlin Regional Court II seeking a preliminary injunction to secure access to publicly available data on the platform X (formerly Twitter). The request was made in the context of a research project aimed at evaluating political discourse on social media ahead of the Bundestag (Parliament) elections, scheduled for February 23, 2025.

The petitioner explained that its group of researchers was “researching political discourse on social media platforms in the run-up to elections in Europe as part of a larger research project. This includes the upcoming Bundestag elections on February 23, 2025.” [Application, p. 4] DRI emphasized that to carry out their research into the political discourse that takes place on  X, before the Bundestag elections, the researchers needed access to the data publicly available on the platform. It also argued that it had the right to access this data under Article 40(12) of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires online platforms to provide access to publicly available information without undue delay. The petitioner underscored that its researchers were “entitled to this data for their research in accordance with Art. 40 para. 12 DSA. Although the petitioners meet all eligibility requirements, the respondent has not yet granted them access to research data and is thus violating its legal obligation under Art. 40 para. 12 DSA.” [Application, p. 5]

According to DRI, despite fulfilling all eligibility requirements for receiving such data, X repeatedly denied access, jeopardizing its research on systemic risks in the digital sphere and the impact of disinformation on electoral processes and democracy.

The petitioner explained that on 17 April 2024, it submitted a request to access X’s data through the platform’s designated application process. Over several months, X requested additional information from the plaintiff, reviewed the application, and ultimately rejected it on November 28, 2024, without providing a clear justification.

Since X’s refusal to grant access to the data posed a significant risk to the timely execution of the research during the critical pre-election period, DRI filed for injunctive relief before the Berlin Regional Court II. In its petition, it emphasized that immediate access to the data was essential to analyze political discourse trends and potential disinformation campaigns in real-time. DRI also stressed that delaying access would amount to a denial of its rights under the DSA, as the data would lose its research value after the elections.

Furthermore, DRI added that the European Commission has already initiated several proceedings against the defendant for alleged violations of the DSA—such as failing to comply with Article 40(12).

The applicant argued that the right to access research data recognized in Article 40(12) of the DSA is essential to prevent interferences during elections and the spread of disinformation campaigns. It pointed out that recent electoral processes, such as the 2024 Romanian presidential elections, have shown the significant impact that social media platforms can have on elections and public debate. In this context, DRI argued that the DSA gives researchers a crucial role in studying these risks and mitigating their impact on society and democracy. Furthermore, it pointed out that for researchers to be able to perform this function, platforms must comply with their legal obligations and provide timely access to data.

Finally, the applicant emphasized that the DSA requires access to be granted “without undue delay,” and that the only way to guarantee effective judicial protection in this case was through summary proceedings.

On 7 February 2025, the Berlin Regional Court II issued a decision regarding the injunction—without a hearing, or a response from the defendant platform, as the plaintiff had requested an urgent precautionary measure that did not allow for delay.

Decision Overview

The Berlin Regional Court II issued a decision in response to DRI’s application for a preliminary injunction. The main issue before the Court was whether X’s refusal to provide access to publicly available data on its platform constituted an unjustified restriction under Article 40(12) of the Digital Services Act and whether an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to DRI’s research project.

DRI argued that its right to access research data under the DSA was being violated and that the restriction on data access posed a significant risk to the study of online political discourse ahead of the Bundestag elections in Germany. The petitioner argued that any further delay in obtaining the data would jeopardize the viability of their research, as the proximity of the Bundestag elections made timely access to the information essential for analyzing political discourse in real time. It also stressed that the DSA grants researchers an essential role in identifying systemic risks related to disinformation and political manipulation, making timely access to data a crucial component of election monitoring efforts.

The Court granted the preliminary injunction without an oral hearing, stating that the urgency of the case justified immediate judicial intervention. It agreed with DRI’s argument that “further waiting to access the publicly available data would effectively frustrate the purpose of the applicant’s research project due to the expiration of the particularly crucial period immediately before the Bundestag election.” [p. 2]

The Court found that DRI had made a credible case under Section 823(2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with articles 40(12) and 54 of the DSA. The Court ruled that the urgency of the matter justified injunctive relief, as waiting for a final ruling in the main proceedings would render the right to access the data ineffective.

The Court highlighted that there was a concrete risk that the applicant could “face significant disadvantages if access to the platform’s publicly available data continues to be denied.” [p. 2] Moreover, it noted that X had been contacted multiple times and had failed to provide a response before legal action was taken.

Hence, the Court ruled that an injunction was warranted to prevent the potential disruption of DRI’s research project. It ordered X to grant unrestricted access to all publicly available data on its platform via its online interface until February 25, 2025. Additionally, the Court ordered the defendant to cover the costs of the proceedings (€6,000).