Despite the lifting of the preliminary injunction, the ruling contains an important finding for research institutions: Research institutions may file a lawsuit seeking the disclosure of data in the country where they are headquartered. They are not required to file the lawsuit at the online platform’s headquarters. This option significantly facilitates the enforcement of claims. Nor does the court fundamentally reject the claim for the disclosure of data in real time. It justifies the lifting of the preliminary injunction in this case on the grounds that the research institutions waited too long before seeking the disclosure of data from X via the preliminary injunction.

When data is urgently needed to conduct certain studies, research institutions must act quickly. They cannot wait too long to seek judicial enforcement of their claims. To enforce a claim by means of a preliminary injunction, the matter must be “urgent” or “requiring immediate action.” The prerequisite is that only a swift court decision can prevent serious harm. If the claimant waits too long to file the motion for a preliminary injunction, the urgency may no longer apply. This is what happened here: After X refused to hand over the data at the end of November 2024, the researchers waited more than two months and did not file the motion for a preliminary injunction until February 2025. In the court’s view, this indicated that they themselves did not consider a decision as quickly as possible to be a priority. The fact that the data was needed to investigate possible election manipulation in connection with the federal election did not convince the court of the urgency of the matter. In the court’s view, it had already been clear in November 2024 that new elections would be held. The date for the new election had been known since the end of December 2024. By that time at the latest, the researchers could and should have applied to the court for the release of the necessary data.

It remains unclear what requirements must be met to be entitled to the disclosure of data under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and how conflicting interests will be weighed. The Berlin Regional Court II did not have to address the arguments raised by X against the claim for data disclosure. X had invoked the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression of the affected users. The courts will have to determine in the future which rights take precedence—the rights of online platform users on the one hand, or the rights of the scientific community and the general public on the other.