Tobias Hilfrich
in

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 of the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice 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.

Facebook/Instagram: Court deliveries also permitted in German!

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.

Report

What do you think?

Mitwirkender

Written by Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel specializes in the areas of competition law, copyright law and IT/IP law and specializes in computer games, sports, marketing and streamers/influencers. He supports start-ups in their development, assists them with all legal problems and supports them in business development.

Jahre an MitgliedschaftCommunity ModeratorBestätigter NutzerFan des ForumContent Author

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Loading…

0

Comments

0 comments