There are certain legal doctrines (and treaties) regarding standing. I don't know about the situation between Germany/the EU vis-a-vis the US, but, as an exampl

There are certain legal doctrines (and treaties) regarding standing. I don't know about the situation between Germany/the EU vis-a-vis the US, but, as an example, the EU rules specify that in almost all cases consumers get to sue / can only be sued at their place of residence (unless they consent to a different venue). This is to ensure a somewhat level playing field, since the consumer is usually the weaker party. I would argue that, even though it's not a consumer vs. company lawsuit the situation is comparable and it's fair to empower her with the choice of venue. I also don't see it as an unreasonable burden to consider the legal situation in Germany when you're publishing information about a German citizen, in German. This isn't some Pakistani court imposing sharia law on HBO because people could possibly watch it in Karachi if they have the right VPN. The alternative interpretation of some of these comments is that basically no law should apply to the internet. Even though I have some sympathy for the techno-anarcho mindset (fuck that stupid cookie regulation!), I would argue that if anything that happens online has any power, that power requires checks that go beyond 'might is right'. And even acknowledging all their faults, I haven't come across a better method than a democratically legitimated court of law. (Having said all that: she lost, the system is working).