• Mehr als 3 Millionen Wörter Inhalt
  • |
  • info@itmedialaw.com
  • |
  • Tel: 03322 5078053
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

No products in the cart.

  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Kurzberatung
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

BGH: is Adblock dominant as a provider?

18. October 2019
in Law on the Internet, Other
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0 0
A A
0
p palais2013 mitbrunnen miletzki internet

Adblock provider Eyeo is involved in numerous litigation and has now also lost a case in the Federal Court of Justice in antitrust matters.

The BGH ruled that competitive forces faced by a company operating on a two-sided market, which provides a service to one side of the market
free of charge and demands remuneration
from the other side of the market, could not generally be correctly identified without considering both sides of the market
and their mutual influence.

In addition, the Cartel Senate ruled that Adblock would be dominant in the market if the operator of a website had no other economically viable access to users, but adblock itself was responsible for suppressing advertising, on the one hand, offer others, however, for a fee, the activation of the blocked advertising by inclusion in a white list.

Both the Munich Regional Court and the Munich Higher Regional Court dismissed the claim that Eyeo must refrain from, among other things, making the activation of advertising dependent on the conclusion of a contract or the payment of a fee, in particular a revenue-based fee, encouraging users to use the
ad blocker to block advertising on their websites, to impair communication between user devices and the servers of media agencies by interfering with messages about displayed advertising, to deceive users by purporting to activate advertising through a “user community” and, finally, to present the functionality of the ad blocker to users as an altruistic or non-profit activity.

While the BGH mainly rejected unfair claims and thus largely in accordance with its previous case law, it annulled the Higher Regional Court of Munich in all questions, the rejection of antitrust claims under Section 18 para. 1 i.V.m. s. 19 para. 1, paragraph 2 No. 1 GWB.

A company is dominant in accordance with Paragraph 18 para. 1 GWB, where, as a supplier or a customer of a particular type of goods or commercial services, it is without competitors on the relevant product and geographic market, is not exposed to substantial competition or is a competitor in relation to its competitors has an outstanding market position.

However, the OLG had decided that, although Eyeo was the only provider of an advertising release and that users who have adblock installier could only be reached by activating Eyeo with advertising, it would not be able to position on the relevant market. Just as a food discounter with a small market share in the food market is not dominant in the market over food manufacturers because the food manufacturer cannot reach the discounter’s regular customers if the discounter does not include the manufacturer’s food in its range, Eyeo does not have a dominant position on the ground that only it can bring access to users by activating advertising.

This is not the subject of the BGH.

If, as in the case of a dispute, it concerns a potentially dominant supplier, the product (or service) that it offers must first be identified. Only on this basis can it be meaningfully examined whether products offered by
other suppliers are interchangeable from the point of view of the customers, i.e. the
(potential) buyers of the product, in terms of their properties, intended use
and price to cover a specific need.

The comparison of the Higher Regional Court is wrong, since, unlike the discounter, Eyeo is not a demand agent but a provider, and it is therefore not a question of what proportion of all Internet users it can make available to the site operators, but on which market it is it offers the removal of the barrier to access which it has created itself.

Eyeo’s pricing leeway and thus also the objective of the ARC would only be controlled by competition if the operators of ad-financed websites could also obtain access to
internet users who have installed Adblock and preset the “Easylist Germany” in a way other than by inclusion in the preset white list for a fee, i.e. Eyeo’s corresponding service could therefore be substituted by other services from the point of view of the other side of the market.

The BGH therefore referred those claims back to the OLG in order to assess that circumstance and, at the same time, to determine whether Eyeo, as the standard addressee of Paragraph 19(4) of the 2 No. 1 GWB unfairly hinders another company or treats it differently from similar companies without objectively justified
reason. In order to do so, the OLG must carry out a comprehensive balance of the interests involved, taking into account the objective of the Law against Restrictions of Competition, which is aimed at freedom of competition.

The following statement of the Federal Court of Justice is interesting in this consideration, which at first impression seems to be a weakening of the Adblock II judgment:

It follows, however, that the defendant’s interest in controlling the advertising of the site operators by blocking and unlocking them and participating in their advertising proceeds is not worthy of protection as such, but may only be taken into account to the extent that it does: legitimate interests of those Internet users who have installed the defendant’s ad blocker, or to finance the development and maintenance of the ad blocker, thereby achieving a reasonable and risk-appropriate profit.

The BGH therefore turns in circles, weakens corresponding jurisprudence and does not seem to know correctly in the numerous judgments itself whether it wants to protect users, whether it should protect advertisers or whether there is anything in between. So it remains exciting, because the path of jurisprudence in these and similar cases is currently difficult to predict.

Marian Härtel
Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.

Tags: AgenturenBghCase lawDevelopmentFederal courtinternetJudgmentsKILawsLawsuitLegal issuesLegal questionMunich Higher Regional CourtServerservice

Weitere spannende Blogposts

Esports and prize money

Esports and prize money
1. October 2024

Although the e-sports industry is experiencing an unprecedented boom, this rapid growth is also accompanied by numerous challenges and problems....

Read moreDetails

OLG Frankfurt: No liability for lost profits when buying cryptocurrencies as a courtesy

Bitcoin trading not subject to licensing
15. May 2023

If a friend invests money of a friend with the friend's consent in different cryptocurrencies and exchange losses occur during...

Read moreDetails

BaFin and the regulation of e-money (including computer games)

BaFin and the regulation of e-money (including computer games)
11. December 2022

What is BaFin? BaFin is the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority and is the German supervisory authority for credit institutions, insurance...

Read moreDetails

YouTube/Twitch and swastikas in streams/videos?

Abusive warnings are punishable by law
29. July 2019

Currently, there is a persistent discussion about whether videos from the game "Wolfenstein: Youngblood" can be shown in the English...

Read moreDetails

Influencer jurisprudence: OLG Munich vs. the rest of Germany?

Frankfurt district court a.M. softens influencer jurisdiction
7. November 2022

Did Cathy Hummels advertise on her Instagram profile as an influencer? This question was addressed by the Munich Higher Regional...

Read moreDetails

Spam is not limited to email

Spam is not limited to email
7. November 2022

Today I reported on this ruling of the OLG Nuremberg. Moving away from the actual legal issues surrounding advertising, the...

Read moreDetails

Black money agreement via WhatsApp = no remuneration for work

Black money agreement via WhatsApp = no remuneration for work
7. November 2022

A contractor from Bochum is not paid for renovation work in Düsseldorf. Although he and also the client denied this,...

Read moreDetails

Esport Teams, “Freelancers” and the Federal Labor Court

Artikel zu welchen Themen sind interessant?
7. November 2022

In line with my article from yesterday regarding possible reclaim claims from clients against contractors, I received an inquiry from...

Read moreDetails

Porn shoot or filmed prostitution?

Spree killings announced over the Internet?
7. November 2022

It is always exciting to see what German courts have to deal with. But it's great. The following is my...

Read moreDetails
Purpose transfer theory

Purpose transfer theory

28. June 2023

Introduction The purpose transfer theory is a legal principle that plays an important role in copyright law in particular. It...

Read moreDetails
Age verification systems (AVS)

Age verification systems (AVS)

16. October 2024
Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV)

Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV)

1. July 2023
76926310072fac9e0887add76b9526dd

German Stock Corporation Act (AktG)

9. November 2024
LG Munich: Focus doctors seal is misleading

Higher Regional Court

25. June 2023

Podcast Folgen

Rechtliche Herausforderungen innovativer Geschäftsmodelle

Rechtliche Herausforderungen innovativer Geschäftsmodelle

26. September 2024

In dieser fesselnden Podcast-Episode tauche ich als IT- und Medienrechtsanwalt tief in die Welt der rechtlichen Herausforderungen ein, die mit...

Leben als IT-Anwalt, Work-Life Balance, Familie und meine Karriere

Leben als IT-Anwalt, Work-Life Balance, Familie und meine Karriere

25. September 2024

In dieser fesselnden Episode meines IT-Medialaw Podcasts teile ich, Marian Härtel, meine persönliche Reise als leidenschaftlicher IT-Rechtsanwalt. Ich erzähle von...

Rechtliche Risiken bei langen Entwicklungszeiten und der Stornierung von Crowdfundingspielen

Rechtliche Risiken bei langen Entwicklungszeiten und der Stornierung von Crowdfundingspielen

20. April 2025

In dieser Episode erörtern wir die rechtlichen Herausforderungen, denen Spieleentwickler bei der Finanzierung durch Crowdfunding gegenüberstehen. Wir beleuchten die Verpflichtungen...

Die Romantisierung des Prinzips ‘Fail Fast’ in Startups – Wann wird Scheitern zur Täuschung gegenüber Beteiligten?

Die Romantisierung des Prinzips ‘Fail Fast’ in Startups – Wann wird Scheitern zur Täuschung gegenüber Beteiligten?

20. April 2025

In diese Episode wird die komplexe Beziehung zwischen dem 'Fail Fast'-Prinzip und den Verantwortlichkeiten der Gründer gegenüber Investoren und Mitarbeitern...

  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Contact
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
Marian Härtel, Rathenaustr. 58a, 14612 Falkensee, info@itmedialaw.com

Marian Härtel - Rechtsanwalt für IT-Recht, Medienrecht und Startups, mit einem Fokus auf innovative Geschäftsmodelle, Games, KI und Finanzierungsberatung.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung