We welcome debate and legitimate criticism. What we cannot accept are demonstrably false factual claims presented as facts, or materials that, in our view, go beyond opinion and encourage targeted “actions” that create or amplify a threat environment for workers.

It is also important to be precise about the power dynamics at issue. In many genuine SLAPP scenarios, a powerful actor uses legal pressure to overwhelm weaker individuals or communities and deter public participation. That is not what happened here. Micro Retail Technologies MRT GmbH is a local business operating in Berlin, and in this case our employees and locations were repeatedly targeted. We were not the aggressor; we were responding to an escalating situation in which workers faced intimidation and criminal acts.

It is important to distinguish genuine SLAPP cases from routine, proportionate legal steps designed to prevent escalation. We have not initiated court proceedings against any bookstore, neighborhood shop, or civil society actor for expressing opinions. The correspondence referenced consisted of standard cease-and-desist notices—a legally prescribed instrument under German law. These notices are not lawsuits, do not seek damages, and do not restrict freedom of expression or legitimate criticism.

Any proportionality assessment must also include the context that is currently missing from the public narrative. Since mid-2025, Micro Retail Technologies MRT GmbH has reported over 25 incidents of vandalism and intimidation to the police, including property damage and harassment of employees; in several cases staff faced verbal threats and physical intimidation. These are documented incidents, not allegations. As an employer, we have a duty of care. Protecting workers from intimidation and physical harm is not censorship—it is a basic responsibility.

For that reason, we first asked the relevant venues to remove materials we understood as escalating the situation. Only after this was refused did we have counsel communicate formally. The goal was never to “shut down criticism,” but to stop escalation, protect employees, and address false factual claims through proportionate legal means.

Against that backdrop, framing this situation as a SLAPP case reflects a misunderstanding of what occurred. The issue was not suppressing an opinion; it was preventing violence, intimidation, and the spread of false factual claims presented as truth.

Labelling lawful, proportionate requests for factual correction as “intimidation” risks diluting the meaning of genuine SLAPP cases and undermines serious human-rights discourse—particularly when documented violence and threats directed at workers are omitted.

We remain available for constructive dialogue and transparent engagement.