It's a multi-layered argument and a bit of it probably got lost in the process of summarizing it for news reporting and the subsequent translation. You can find

It's a multi-layered argument and a bit of it probably got lost in the process of summarizing it for news reporting and the subsequent translation. You can find the original decision from April 2021 where YouTube was ordered to put the video back up here https://www.justiz.sachsen.de/esamosplus/pages/index.aspx https://www.justiz.sachsen.de/esamosplus/pages/index.aspx by searching for Aktenzeichen "4 W 118/21" and then clicking on „Dokument öffnen“. It does contain language quite similar to "regardless of the contract, we hold that ...": Dahingestellt bleiben kann dabei, ob die Nutzungsbedingungen bzw. die „Richtlinie zur medizinischen Fehlinformation über COVID-19“ einer AGB-rechtlichen Kontrolle standhalten, insbesondere, ob sie dem Transparenzgebot genügen bzw. den Nutzer nicht unangemessen benachteiligen (§307 BGB). Denn die Inhalte des streitgegenständlichen Videos verstoßen bereits nicht gegen die Ende Januar 2021 gültige „Richtlinie zu medizinischen Fehlinformation über COVID-19“ (aa). Bezüglich der Neufassung der vorgenannten Richtlinie hat die Beklagte dagegen nicht glaubhaft gemacht, dass diese wirksam in den Vertrag einbezogen ist (bb). "The question whether the terms of use resp. the "guidelines regarding medical disinformation about COVID-19" would withstand a check under ToS-law, especially whether they are sufficiently transparent resp. inappropriately disadvantage the user (§307 BGB) can be left aside. Because the content of the video under dispute already does not run counter to the "guidelines regarding medical disinformation about COVID-19" that were in effect at the end of January 2021 (aa). As for the revised version of the aforementioned guidelines, the accused has not convincingly argued that it has been effectively incorporated into the contract (bb)."