- Actor Christian Ulmen (50) achieved partial success against “Spiegel” before the Hamburg Higher Regional Court.
- The court prohibits the magazine from arousing suspicion that Ulmen made or distributed deepfake videos of his ex-wife Collien Fernandes (44).
- It is undisputed that Ulmen created and sent deepfake photos; “Spiegel” is allowed to continue reporting on the allegations of violence.
Christian Ulmen (50) has achieved partial success in the legal dispute with the news magazine “Der Spiegel”. The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Hamburg prohibited the magazine from arousing suspicion that the actor had Deepfake videos of his former wife Collien Fernandes (44) manufactured or distributed. However, “Spiegel” is allowed to continue reporting on the central allegations of violence. This emerges from communications from both parties regarding the decision of June 22, 2026.
Unlike the district court before it, the Senate saw the deepfake video suspicion as compelling – both with regard to production and distribution. However, the required minimum amount of evidence is missing. However, it remained undisputed that Ulmen created and sent deepfake photos. Deepfakes are images, videos and sound recordings that have been manipulated or completely recreated using artificial intelligence.
How do you assess the danger posed by deepfakes?
What was required – and what remained
Ulmen originally took action against the article with five injunctions. Firstly, they were directed against the suspicion that he had produced or distributed deepfake videos; secondly, against suspicion of physical assault and serious threats; thirdly, against the suspicion that he mistreated his ex-wife in Mallorca in January 2023 or prevented her from leaving the apartment; fourthly, against passage to a court hearing there; and fifthly, against the reproduction of quotes from an email to his defense lawyer.
In the first instance, the Hamburg Regional Court recognized only one of these points at the beginning of May – the passage on the Mallorca court date. Two more have now been added before the Higher Regional Court: the ban surrounding the deepfake video suspicion and the prohibition of individual email quotes, where the balance would be in Ulmen’s favor. However, the actor was unsuccessful in the allegations of physical assault and alleged mistreatment in Mallorca.
The dispute was triggered by a “Spiegel” article about allegations by Collien Fernandes, which appeared on March 20, 2026 in issue 13/2026 under the title “Exposed on the Net”; It ran online under the heading “Criminal complaint against Christian Ulmen – ‘You virtually raped me’”. Ulmen immediately lodged an appeal against the rejection of most of the points.
Two camps, two readings
Ulmen’s lawyers see the latest decision as an important success. The deepfake video suspicion triggered follow-up reporting bordering on hysteria, according to a press release. The appeal is to wait for the investigation: the district court in Palma de Mallorca has denied its jurisdiction, the proceedings in Potsdam are just beginning, and there are no relevant results yet.
The “Spiegel”, in turn, emphasizes that its core allegations remain undisputed and that the suspicion of sexualized digital violence and physical attacks can continue to be reported. The magazine has provided the areas in question with clarifying sentences and a transparency note and is examining further legal action.
Fernandes counters on Instagram
Collien Fernandes himself reacted on Instagram. She shared two passages from the “Spiegel” article and captioned them “Breaking News: Ulmen fails before the Hamburg Higher Regional Court”.
The passages quoted revolve around points that the court considers to be undisputed. According to the Higher Regional Court, Ulmen “undisputedly distributed pornographic videos and photos of other women who looked similar to her ex-wife under her name.” He did this because he “wanted to make the recipient believe” that they were recordings of Fernandes.
Are you or someone you know affected by sexual, domestic, psychological or other violence?
You can find help here:
That’s why the comment field was deactivated

















