Woman free to speak on social media about her relationship with a singer
An Australian singer-songwriter went to court in the Netherlands to make our client take down her posts about their relationship and never speak about it again. On 27 March 2026 the District Court of Amsterdam rejected every one of his claims. Her own experience, told in her own words, fell within her freedom of expression, the court held.
This case was handled by Merel Teunissen, a lawyer specialising in media law and unlawful publication.
How the posts on TikTok and YouTube came about
Our client was a Dutch fan of the singer. In the summer of 2023 he sent her a message on Instagram, after which they met and were involved with each other for about two and a half years. The relationship ended for good in the autumn of 2025.
After allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards young female fans, the singer apologised on Instagram at the end of October 2025. In December our client said in a TikTok video that she had been in an abusive relationship for the past two and a half years. She didn’t name anyone.
She later started a YouTube channel for her work as a coach. There she also talks about how to deal with someone who has a narcissistic personality disorder.
Cease-and-desist letters from Australia and interim injunction proceedings in Amsterdam
Between 20 December 2025 and 5 January 2026 the singer’s Australian lawyer sent three cease-and-desist letters. We replied that her statements fell within freedom of expression.
The writ of summons followed in February, with claims that went much further than a few videos. The singer wanted an order banning her from making allegations about him in any medium, the removal of every post about him and a rectification on her own channels. He also sought a contact ban that extended to his family and business contacts.
On top of that came a copyright claim. According to the singer, she had put unreleased songs of his online.
How a Dutch court weighs statements on social media
Freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR (in Dutch) may only be restricted where the law provides for it and it is necessary in a democratic society, for example to protect another person’s reputation. That turns on whether a statement is unlawful within the meaning of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (in Dutch). The court weighs the singer’s interest in not being exposed to reckless insinuations against our client’s interest in speaking out critically and as a warning to others.
The court stressed that freedom of expression also protects statements that offend, shock or disturb. And it was up to the singer to show, post by post, what made each one unlawful.
Why our client’s posts were not unlawful
In the TikTok video of 10 December our client named no one. An ordinary viewer therefore couldn’t know who it was about. Only a Discord group of fans knew that she and the singer had been involved, possibly also because the singer himself had gone to the press.
Even for that small group the video stayed within the limits. According to the court, “abusive” doesn’t only mean violent but can also mean damaging, inappropriate or hurtful. Describing a relationship that way in hindsight, because that is how it felt, does not automatically accuse the other person of a criminal offence.
The singer didn’t take his most serious allegations from her own posts but from private messages and voice messages she had sent to another fan. Those messages later ended up in the Discord group. In that conversation our client had written herself that it was meant to stay private. The court therefore did not hold her responsible for someone else spreading the messages.
The remaining posts gave the court no reason to step in either. A TikTok story was online for only 24 hours. The screenshots in it were on screen too briefly to read and made no link at all to the singer. She posted the videos about narcissism for her coaching practice, without saying of any specific person that they had a narcissistic personality.
Outcome of the interim injunction proceedings: every claim rejected
The court rejected every claim. The ban and the rectification failed because the posts were not unlawful. An order to remove them served no purpose, as our client had already taken down her Instagram and TikTok posts after the singer sought publicity and she started getting unwanted followers.
The contact ban did not succeed either. One or two WhatsApp messages to a band or crew member did not make her a stalker. On the copyright claim, the singer had not shown that a leaked song had reached the internet through her.
The singer has to pay our client’s legal costs, which the court assessed at €1,707.
A cease-and-desist letter about your own posts on social media
If you receive a cease-and-desist letter because you have talked online about your own experience, you don’t have to delete everything or apologise straight away. In this case the court looked mainly at three things: whether the other person was recognisable to an ordinary viewer, whether our client described her own experience or accused him of a criminal offence, and whether she had published the messages herself.
That doesn’t give you free rein. If you name someone and accuse them of criminal offences, those accusations must rest on a sufficient factual basis. That’s why we first read every post the letter is about, before you take anything down or write back.
A Dutch court makes the same assessment when a gossip channel publishes about a well-known person. In one such case we acted for, the balance went against the vlogger, who had to remove her video and publish a rectification.
Received a cease-and-desist letter about something you shared online? Contact Merel Teunissen.
Case law
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:3130 (in Dutch), District Court of Amsterdam, 27 March 2026, C/13/783721 / KG ZA 26-127
