The Berlin Regional Court upheld the claim and ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The use of the voice constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's rights that is not justified on the grounds of freedom of art or speech, satire, or other exceptions.
The court ruled in accordance with existing case law that the constitutionally guaranteed general right of personality includes the “right to the own voice.” This right had been infringed in the present case. Given the similarity of the voice used to that of the plaintiff, a significant portion of the public assumed that the plaintiff had recorded the text of the videos as a voice actor. Due to the similarity created, there is “confusion among the public” as to whether it is the plaintiff's voice or whether he consented to the use of his voice. The court gave particular weight to the political content of the videos in its assessment. The use of the plaintiff's voice could give the impression that the plaintiff identified with the content of the videos or the defendant’s political views, thereby damaging his public reputation. In view of the videos' government-critical content and the defendant's advertised web shop selling “anti-woke” products, the defendant was apparently to be classified as belonging to the right-wing political spectrum.