In the digital world, we are all constantly connected, and platforms like LinkedIn offer us the opportunity to expand our professional network. However, there are limits that must be observed here as well. A recent ruling by the Hamm Higher Regional Court makes it clear how important it is to respect these boundaries.

Content Hide

1. The case in detail

2. The main considerations of the OLG Hamm

3. Actually already clear earlier: OLG Nuremberg 2019

4. Experience from other contributions

5. My conclusion

5.1. Author: Marian Härtel

Key Facts

Addressing target groups: The OLG Hamm found that cross-industry contacts are not sufficient.
Advertising character: Messages are problematic, even without a direct call to purchase, if the sender emphasizes himself.
Consent: Contact without the prior consent of the recipient is not permitted.
Legal principles: Current ruling correlates with OLG Nuremberg ruling from 2019 on sending emails.
Cold Contacting: Earlier posts deal with the risks and regulations about LinkedIn contacting.
Competition law: Laws against unfair competition also apply in the digital space.
Marketing caution: Companies should ensure consent before using LinkedIn for marketing.

The case in detail

In the case at hand (OLG Hamm, 18 U 154/22), a company sent messages with advertising content to several users via LinkedIn without the recipients’ prior consent. The court found the act to be anti-competitive under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

The main considerations of the OLG Hamm

I have taken a closer look at the ruling and would like to address some key points:

Targeting: The OLG Hamm emphasized that it is not sufficient that the sender and the recipient are in the same industry.
Advertising character: A message is not per se unproblematic just because it does not contain a direct call to purchase. It is enough if the sender puts himself or his services in the foreground.
Consent: Without the express or implied consent of the recipient, such contact is not permitted.

Actually already clear earlier: OLG Nuremberg 2019

It is interesting to see that the current ruling is in line with an earlier ruling of the OLG Nuremberg from 2019. At that time, it was about sending emails, but the legal principles are similar. You can read my assessment of the ruling here.

Experience from other contributions

In the past, I’ve published a few posts on cold contacting on LinkedIn. Anyone who would like to find out more about this can do so here and here.

My conclusion

This ruling is an important signal to all companies that use LinkedIn for business activities. It shows that the laws against unfair competition also apply in the digital world. Caution is therefore advised: Anyone wishing to use LinkedIn for marketing purposes should ensure that the recipient has given the appropriate consent.

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: Advertising LinkedIn marketing Spam Uwg