Workflow13 min read

Law firm workflow

Germany's digital violence bill and the evidence-preservation window

Germany's draft Gesetz gegen digitale Gewalt would make court-ordered evidence preservation at providers, judicial disclosure of anonymous posters' data, and temporary account blocking central civil instruments. Provider data can disappear in days. This law-firm workflow explains the intake record that makes a preservation window usable, as workflow preparation rather than legal advice. The bill is still a draft.

Updated September 2026By Henryk Wexel

Key takeaways

The BMJV Referentenentwurf of April 17, 2026 would create a judicial disclosure procedure (Auskunftsverfahren) with a judicial reservation, evidence-preservation orders (Beweissichernde Anordnungen) directed at providers, and temporary account blocking for serious violations with repetition risk. It is a draft, not enacted law.
BT-Drs. 21/7330 (July 2026) confirms the June 2027 deadline for implementing EU Directive 2024/1385 and acknowledges remaining gaps. The political debate is active: CDU/CSU have demanded a broader digitale Gewalt offense and the DAV has criticized the draft. Neither position is adopted text.
Preservation orders would direct providers to secure data they hold; they do not assemble a firm's factual record. What makes the instruments usable is a credible factual showing, and that showing depends on the firm's own intake discipline: what content, which URLs and accounts, when captured, what was already reported, and how handling was documented.
Finium structures that intake record as evidence files with captures, timestamps, hashes, custody notes, chronology, and scoped exports. The firm remains the legal actor. Finium does not file applications, and no record is guaranteed to meet any court's standard.

What the bill is and where it stands

Draft status

As of September 2026 the Gesetz gegen digitale Gewalt is a Referentenentwurf, not enacted law. The CDU/CSU push for a broader digitale Gewalt offense is a political demand, not adopted text, and the DAV has criticized the draft. This guide describes workflow preparation only.

Why this is an evidence-workflow bill

Each civil instrument would run on facts that the affected person or their counsel must supply. A disclosure application needs a specific rights violation tied to a specific account. A preservation order needs sufficient factual indications (zureichende tatsächliche Anhaltspunkte) that a violation occurred, and under the draft it is issued once a disclosure procedure is pending. Account blocking needs a showing of severity and repetition risk. Meanwhile the underlying provider-side data (assignment data, IP logs, account records) is volatile: retention periods are short, and content can be deleted or altered at any time. The practical consequence for firms is a window. The factual record has to exist, in structured form, before the instruments can be used, and it has to be built while the material is still observable. This guide describes record preparation only; whether and how to file any application is counsel's judgment, and nothing here is procedural legal advice.

Intake record checklist for a preservation-window matter

Intake fields that make the factual record usable

Field	What to record	Operational purpose
Content and URLs	Exact URL per item, full capture of the post or page, original media files where obtainable	Ties the factual showing to specific, verifiable material
Account context	Handle, display name, profile URL, visible profile state at capture time	Connects items to an account without asserting who controls it
Timestamps	Observation time with timezone, capture time, and the time source	Places every item on a timeline the firm can defend
Pattern and repetition	Chronology of related items, repeat handles, posting cadence, escalation steps	Supports the factual basis for severity and repetition-risk showings
Report history	What was reported to which platform, when, and every response received	Documents prior handling and platform decisions
Integrity signals	SHA-256 hash per capture, custody note per item, access log for sensitive material	Keeps the record verifiable between capture and any later use
Authorization	Who instructed the capture, the consent or authorization basis, and scope limits	Records the firm's own handling basis per matter

Workflow: capture, preserve, timestamp, structure, export

The intake record is built in the same five steps as any online-harm evidence file, with the preservation window raising the urgency of the first two. The timestamping workflow and the general intake workflow describe each step in depth; the bullets below map them to a preservation-window matter.

Capture: full-page captures of every item, account pages as observed, thread and spread context, and the discovery path per item
Preserve: originals into restricted storage immediately, with sensitive material (intimate images, threats, material involving minors) routed under the firm's handling rules
Timestamp: observation and capture times with timezone recorded before any summarization or analysis reshapes the file
Structure: chronology, source map by account and platform, report-history table, and open questions for counsel
Export: a scoped bundle for the instructing lawyer with manifest, hash list, custody log, and a limitations note

Sensitive material and privacy minimization

Digital-violence matters routinely involve intimate images, sexualized synthetic media, threats, and material involving minors. The intake record has to stay usable without spreading that material through the firm. Capture once into restricted storage, reference items by evidence ID in working documents, log every access to an original, and let the instructing lawyer decide what leaves the boundary. The security controls page describes the storage and access model; the handling decision remains the firm's.

What Finium does not do here

Finium is not a law firm. It does not file an Auskunftsverfahren or any other application, does not advise on whether the draft bill's instruments would apply to a matter, and does not guarantee that any record satisfies a court's preservation or disclosure standard. Under the draft, preservation duties would fall on providers under judicial order, not on affected persons or their tooling. Finium's role is the evidence layer: capture, preservation, timestamps, hashes, custody notes, chronology, and scoped exports that the instructed firm reviews and uses at its own judgment. The firm remains the legal actor in every matter.

Preparing the firm now, whatever the bill's final shape

The draft may change and the political debate around it (a broader offense demanded by CDU/CSU, DAV criticism, discussion of IP-retention linkages) is unresolved. The intake discipline, however, is useful under any version of the law and under current law too: a structured record of content, accounts, timestamps, reports, and handling improves every personality-rights matter a firm runs today, including preservation-request workflows and ordinary online-harm intake. Firms handling German matters can start with three concrete steps: an intake SOP that captures URLs, account context, and timestamps as first fields; a sensitivity-routing rule for intimate or minor-related material; and an authorization record per matter. Our Germany jurisdiction page describes how Finium fits German-language matters.

Disclaimers and operating boundary

This workflow is an evidence-operations reference, not legal advice, and it takes no position on the draft bill, the political debate around it, or data-retention policy. The Gesetz gegen digitale Gewalt is a draft (Referentenentwurf) and not enacted law; its content, scope, and timing may change. Nothing here states that any Finium record satisfies a court's preservation, disclosure, or blocking standard, and no outcome is guaranteed. Case figures and deadlines cited (the June 2027 implementation deadline, BT-Drs. 21/7330) reflect publicly reported documents as of September 2026. The instructed law firm remains the legal actor and makes every procedural decision itself.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Gesetz gegen digitale Gewalt already law?

No. It is a draft bill (Referentenentwurf) published by the BMJV on April 17, 2026, still pre-cabinet as of September 2026 and subject to active political debate. Its content, scope, and timing may change.

What is a Beweissichernde Anordnung in the draft?

A court-directed order requiring a provider to secure data relevant to a pending disclosure procedure, so that enforcement does not fail because the data was deleted while proceedings run. Under the draft, preservation duties fall on providers under judicial order, not on affected persons or their tooling.

Does Finium file disclosure applications or advise on the procedure?

No. Finium is not a law firm and neither files applications nor advises on procedure. It structures the intake evidence record (captures, timestamps, hashes, custody notes, chronology, exports) that the instructed firm reviews and uses at its own judgment.

Why does intake discipline matter before the bill passes?

Because the draft's instruments would run on factual showings, and provider-side data is volatile. A structured intake record improves personality-rights matters under current law too, and it is the part a firm can build now regardless of the bill's final shape.

What is the EU Directive 2024/1385 connection?

Germany must implement the EU Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence by June 2027. The government's answer in BT-Drs. 21/7330 (July 2026) confirms the deadline and acknowledges remaining implementation gaps.

Does a Finium record guarantee that a court will order preservation or disclosure?

No. No record is guaranteed to satisfy any court's standard and no outcome is promised. Courts decide on the facts and law before them; Finium's role ends at a structured, verifiable evidence file the firm can use.

References