• 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
  • 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
  • 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

Spree killings announced over the Internet?

Spree killings announced over the Internet?
7. November 2022

In Main 2013, the plaintiff in a case at the Aachen Administrative Court announced multiple rampage attacks at the Realschule...

Read moreDetails

OLG Brandenburg: Electronic data is not a thing!

OLG Brandenburg: Electronic data is not a thing!
19. November 2019

The problem The OLG Brandenburger passed an interesting, if not too surprising, verdict for it, and in the process annulled...

Read moreDetails

Mobile games as a service commission – recover sales tax?

judge plays videogames in his spare time
7. November 2022

The sale of mobile games or even in-app sales of computer games via app stores constitutes a service commission under...

Read moreDetails

File sharing: Liability for family connection

Online retailer: Notice of warranty of defects
7. November 2022

The Frankfurt District Court has ruled that the owner of an Internet connection is liable for copyright infringements through file...

Read moreDetails

Hearing on Web 3.0 and Metaverse in the Bundestag

Hearing on Web 3.0 and Metaverse in the Bundestag
1. December 2022

Is Internet still just "uncharted territory" for government and lawmakers? And what about the next generation of the Internet, which...

Read moreDetails

BGH decides on the right to name in copyright contract law

BGH considers Uber Black to be anti-competitive
24. October 2023

Introduction On June 15, 2023, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued a significant decision in the context of...

Read moreDetails

Consent to privacy in e-commerce and SaaS: A breach of the GDPR?

District Court Frankfurt a.M. on the right to be forgotten
1. June 2023

Introduction In my work in the world of e-commerce and SaaS providers, it is a common practice to ask users...

Read moreDetails

OLG Frankfurt rules on influencer labelling requirement for sponsored travel

Legal form as an influencer? A few hints!
24. October 2019

Summary With today's decision, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main has prohibited an influencer and YouTuber from presenting...

Read moreDetails

Expression or statement of fact? The Dangers of Content Producers

Expression or statement of fact? The Dangers of Content Producers
2. August 2019

The problem Freedom of the press is a great asset in the Federal Republic of Germany and we can all...

Read moreDetails
Reverse Break-Up Fee

Reverse Break-Up Fee

15. October 2024

Eine Reverse Break-Up Fee ist eine vertragliche Bestimmung in Fusionen und Übernahmen (M&A), bei der sich der Käufer verpflichtet, eine...

Read moreDetails
Step action

Revision

25. June 2023
Wie man die AGB eines Esports Events aufsetzt und gestaltet

Lootboxen

29. March 2025
Provider liability

Provider liability

16. October 2024
Filmförderungsgesetz (FFG)

Filmförderungsgesetz (FFG)

15. October 2024

Podcast Folgen

Looking to the future: How technology is changing the law

Looking to the future: How technology is changing the law

18. February 2025

In the final episode of the first season of the ITmedialaw.com podcast, we take a look at the future of...

7c0b449a651fe0b81e5eec2e23515012 2

Copyright in the digital age

15. January 2025

This insightful 20-minute podcast episode by and with me explores the complex topic of copyright in the digital age. The...

43a60cb39d7ea477ac8f3845c1b7739c

Legal advice for start-ups – investments that pay off

8. December 2024

This episode of the ITmedialaw.com podcast is all about the importance of legal advice for startups. Host Marian Härtel talks...

8ffe8f2a4228de20d20238899b3d922e

Web3, blockchain and law – a critical review

26. September 2024

  In this insightful episode of the ITmedialaw podcast, we take an in-depth look at the intersection of Web3, blockchain...

  • 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
  • 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