What legal remedies has Till Lindemann pursued against publications that reported on the 2023 allegations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Till Lindemann has used a mix of civil injunctive relief and criminal complaints to push back against reportage of the 2023 allegations: his lawyers obtained interim court orders restricting certain claims in Der Spiegel’s reporting and, later, Lindemann filed a criminal complaint with the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office accusing Spiegel executives of falsifying documents and attempted trial fraud [1] [2] [3]. The actions form a coordinated legal strategy aimed at both removing specific published assertions from circulation and pursuing alleged documentary misconduct by the outlet [4] [5].
1. Interim injunctions and publication bans: stopping specific allegations from being repeated
Lindemann’s legal team secured interim court rulings that prohibited Der Spiegel from suggesting he had drugged women or arranged for them to be drugged to enable sexual acts — a publication ban rooted in injunction proceedings initiated in mid‑2023 and confirmed on appeal in July 2024, which remains in force with the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court’s confirmation [1] [2] [6]. Those injunctions reflect a civil-law remedy designed to prevent repetition of specified allegations while wider litigation or criminal proceedings proceed, and they targeted core formulations in Spiegel’s June 10, 2023 “Row Zero” piece and related reporting [2] [4].
2. Criminal complaint alleging forgery and attempted trial fraud against a news outlet
Beyond civil injunctions, Lindemann filed a criminal complaint with the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office accusing Der Spiegel executives of submitting falsified affidavits and attempting trial fraud in the injunction proceedings — an escalation from defensive civil measures to criminal allegations aimed at the reporters and executives involved [3] [7] [5]. The complaint was announced in a press release by Lindemann’s lawyers in early August 2024, who argued that newly submitted affidavits in Spiegel’s rejoinder were previously unknown and irregular, justifying criminal charges of forgery and attempted trial fraud [2] [5].
3. Lawsuit language and public framing: suing “a German publication” and naming Der Spiegel
Multiple outlets report that Lindemann has “sued” or taken legal action against Der Spiegel for its coverage; reporting variably describes criminal complaints, injunction victories and broader lawsuits against the outlet’s reporting and podcast as part of the same legal campaign [4] [8]. Coverage from NME, Billboard and Euronews frames the measures collectively as litigation against Der Spiegel, and Lindemann’s team publicly characterized the allegations in the press as “without exception untrue” while pursuing both bans and criminal proceedings [4] [3] [7].
4. Broader legal posture: threats against accusers and damage‑control steps
Separately from measures against media organizations, Rammstein’s lawyers signaled intent to file charges against accusers and pursued other protective steps — a posture that amplifies the band’s effort to contest the public narrative and seek legal redress for reputational damage; German reporting in 2023 indicated the band planned to take legal action against publications and that lawyers would file charges against accusers [9] [10]. While those actions reflect an aggressive overall strategy, the specific remedies directed at publications remain the interim injunctions and the criminal complaint alleging falsified documents [1] [2].
5. Outcomes, limits and competing viewpoints
Prosecutors had earlier opened and later dropped a criminal investigation into the underlying sexual‑misconduct allegations in August 2023 for lack of evidence, a fact that complicates both Lindemann’s legal claims against media and the public debate about journalistic responsibility [11]. Der Spiegel and independent journalists have defended investigative reporting practices in similar high‑profile cases, arguing transparency and use of witness testimony are central; however, Lindemann’s team contends specific documentary irregularities warrant criminal scrutiny — a dispute now lodged in courts and with prosecutors [2] [5]. The available reporting does not establish the final legal outcome of the criminal complaint or any trial on alleged forgery, so questions about ultimate accountability for either the reporting or its reversal remain unresolved in the public record [3] [5].