Constitutional appeal against adblock ruling rejected

The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional appeal by Axel Springer against the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice against the action of Axel Springer against the adblock provider Eyeo by order of 22.08.2019 without giving reasons (BvR 921/19).

Axel Springer filed the constitutional complaint, because the publisher saw in the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice a violation of the freedom of the press. Such a reasoning was also necessary, because the Federal Constitutional Court is in principle not a so-called super-revision body and, if at all, examines the correctness of a decision of supreme federal courts, only indirectly. More on the reasoning behind the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling in this post. Since the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court does not require any justification in accordance with Section 93d I of the Federal Constitutional Court Act, the precise considerations of the supreme constitutional guardians, in particular without knowledge of Axel Springer’s notices of appeal, are Dark remain.

However, the changes or concretisation of the case law of the Federal Court of Justice on disability competition from the UWG, which was only coined with the World of Warcraft II decision shortly before the Adblock decision, are likely to be significant. I am currently involved in two proceedings before a German Higher Regional Court, which in future will deal with the question of the extent to which the case law of the Federal Court of Justice has really changed in relation to the World of Warcraft II decision as a matter of procedure and which This will have an impact, in particular, on UWG issues relating to the disability status of the UWG, including for Internet companies.

I will deal with the exact analysis in one of the next contributions.

However, the legal disputes surrounding Adblock are not yet over. Earlier this year, Axel Springer filed a lawsuit against Eyeo on copyright-based issues, which have not yet been decided. The purpose of this procedure is to clarify the basic technical functions of ad blockers and their copyright interference. See this article.

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.