In June 2026, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) in Hamburg issued a ruling that significantly impacted the ongoing legal battle between actor Christian Ulmen and the magazine Der Spiegel. The court ordered Der Spiegel to modify parts of its reporting on allegations made by Ulmen’s former wife, Collien Fernandes. Specifically, the court prohibited the publication of content that could suggest Ulmen had created or distributed deepfake videos of Fernandes. This decision followed an appeal by Ulmen against a previous ruling by the Hamburg District Court, which had largely upheld the legality of Der Spiegel's coverage.
The controversy began when Der Spiegel published an article titled “Du hast mich virtuell vergewaltigt” (You virtually raped me) in March 2026, detailing Fernandes' accusations against Ulmen. According to the article, Ulmen allegedly created fake profiles under his ex-wife's name, engaged in chats with men using these profiles, and sent them explicit images and videos. While the original article did not explicitly accuse Ulmen of creating deepfake videos, the Higher Regional Court determined that certain formulations and transitions in the text could imply such actions, leading to the prohibition of specific passages.
As part of the ruling, Der Spiegel was required to adjust its article by adding clarifying statements at two points, emphasizing that there were no concrete indications that Ulmen had produced or disseminated deepfake videos. Additionally, the court banned the use of two quotes from Ulmen's correspondence with his criminal defense lawyer, citing potential violations of his privacy. These quotes were removed from the article, although the core content regarding the allegations of virtual rape and other forms of digital and sexualized violence remained intact.
Despite the restrictions imposed by the Higher Regional Court, the main body of Der Spiegel's report on Fernandes’ claims against Ulmen was left unchanged. The court acknowledged that Ulmen had indeed created deepfake photos of Fernandes using AI technology and had spread pornographic videos and photos of other women under her name, intending to deceive recipients into believing they were viewing content featuring Fernandes herself. This acknowledgment came after Ulmen’s legal representatives failed to contest these allegations during the proceedings.
The legal team representing Ulmen expressed hope that this judicial decision would contribute to a more measured public discourse and reduce the intense pre-judgment against their client. They emphasized the significance of the ruling for Ulmen, highlighting the need for a balanced perspective in media coverage of such sensitive issues. Meanwhile, Der Spiegel is considering further legal steps regarding the court-mandated clarifications, indicating that the matter might still undergo additional scrutiny in the future.
This case underscores the complex interplay between media freedom and individual privacy rights, particularly in high-profile legal disputes involving allegations of digital abuse. As the situation develops, both parties will likely continue to engage in legal strategies aimed at protecting their respective interests while navigating the challenges posed by public perception and journalistic responsibility.
3 reports
Der SpiegelIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 9013 days agoThe Hamburg Higher Regional Court has ruled that Der Spiegel may continue publishing its report on allegations made by actress Collien Fernandes against her former husband, Christian Ulmen. The court issued two injunctions regarding specific statements but allowed the core content of the article to remain unchanged. The main accusations include claims that Ulmen engaged in 'virtual rape' through digital and sexualized violence, such as creating fake profiles under Fernandes' name to contact hundreds of men and engage in sexually explicit conversations. The court confirmed that Ulmen distributed pornographic videos and photos of women resembling Fernandes under her name and created deepfake images of her using AI technology. These actions were not disputed by Ulmen's lawyers during the proceedings. The court restricted reporting on two minor aspects involving private emails between Ulmen and his lawyer, which touched on personal matters like sexuality. However, the rest of the article remains intact, including Ulmen's admission of chatting with men via fake profiles 'up to the point of discussing sex.'
Bias read (Center): The article presents a legal ruling regarding freedom of press and does not exhibit clear ideological framing. It reports on judicial decisions and includes direct quotes from the court's decision without apparent bias toward either side. The focus is on legal procedures rather than political stance
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Highly factual with detailed quotes from the court decision, accurately representing the legal outcome. The article remains largely objective, presenting the facts without overt bias.
Die ZeitIndependentCenterFactual 92Objective 8813 days agoThe German magazine Der Spiegel has been ordered by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court to modify parts of its reporting on the case involving Christian Ulmen and his former partner Collien Fernandes. The court prohibited the magazine from suggesting that Ulmen might have created or distributed deepfake videos of Fernandes, despite such claims not being explicitly stated in the original article. Additionally, specific passages quoting emails between Ulmen and his defense lawyer were banned due to privacy concerns. While the court upheld the lower court's decision allowing coverage of allegations of violence against Fernandes, it ruled against certain formulations that could imply Ulmen's involvement with deepfakes. Der Spiegel has already adjusted its article online, adding clarifications that there are no concrete indications Ulmen produced or shared deepfake content.
Bias read (Center): The article presents legal rulings and journalistic adjustments without overtly favoring either side. It focuses on the court's decisions regarding the permissible scope of reporting, emphasizing legal boundaries rather than taking a stance on the allegations themselves. The framing remains neutral,
Why these scores (Factual 92 · Objective 88): Factual and concise, accurately reflecting the court's restrictions on the Spiegel reporting. The tone is balanced but includes a brief mention of the public comments section, which may introduce minor subjectivity.
Süddeutsche ZeitungIndependent🔒CenterFactual 90Objective 8513 days agoThe German Federal Constitutional Court has partially upheld a complaint by Christian Ulmen, a former editor-in-chief of the magazine 'Der Spiegel,' against the publication. The court ruled that certain aspects of the magazine's reporting were legally problematic, leading to a new decision against 'Spiegel.' This ruling could have implications for journalistic freedom and the legal boundaries of media criticism in Germany.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a legal decision involving a prominent media outlet and a former editor, which is inherently politically charged due to its implications for press freedom and legal standards in journalism. However, the summary presents the facts neutrally without apparent bias toward either '
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 85): Accurate summary of the court ruling, though slightly less detailed than the first article. The tone is neutral but shows some slight emphasis on Ulmen’s partial victory.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Germany
