Influencer agency contracts and Section 627 BGB: Effectively exclude termination in a relationship of trust

Contracts between influencers and their agencies or between managers and artists are often based on a close relationship of trust. Both sides rely on long-term collaboration – but it is precisely this trust that opens up a loophole for termination without notice under German law. § Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB) allows for extraordinary termination of certain service contracts “at any time” and without good cause. This poses a considerable risk for agencies and managers: an influencer or artist could unexpectedly withdraw from the contract, even though the collaboration was planned for the long term.

In this detailed article, we shed light on the legal structure of Section 627 BGB and explain the conditions under which this special right of termination applies. Above all, however, it deals with how and whether Section 627 BGB can be contractually excluded in order to ensure a stable commitment. The limits and permissibility of such an exclusion in long-term contracts will be analyzed – for example, through clauses that are based on long-term cooperation and mutual trust. Differences between the exclusive manager model (one manager – one artist) and the agency model with several influencers are also worked out, as are parallels with player consultants in professional soccer.

Legal classification of § 627 BGB

§ Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is part of the service contract law in the German Civil Code and grants an extraordinary right of termination without good cause for certain employment relationships. Specifically, it relates to service contracts of a special nature, which have “services of a higher nature” as their object and are based on special trust. Typical examples from legal practice are contracts of a personal nature, for example between client and lawyer, patient and doctor, or artist and manager. In such cases, no contractual partner should be held to a personal service relationship against their will if the relationship of trust has been shaken – even if there is no classic “good cause” within the meaning of Section 626 BGB.

In simple terms, the provision reads: If there is a special relationship of trust in an employment contract and the remuneration is not calculated in fixed periods, either party can terminate the contract at any time without notice. Unlike Section 626 BGB (which allows termination for good cause), Section 627 BGB does not require any justification. It is a statutory right of termination that takes into account the personal elements of the contractual relationship. The classic case is the highly personal employment relationship: here, the law protects the autonomy of both parties by allowing immediate termination if the collaboration is no longer based on trust.

There are two important requirements in accordance with Section 627 (1) BGB:

• Service of a higher nature on a basis of trust: The subject matter of the contract must concern services of a “higher nature”, which according to the common definition means services with a personal position of trust. These are activities in which the personality, skills and loyalty of the service provider are of particular importance to the other party. This includes, for example, artistic agency services, consulting or management activities, medical or legal services, etc., where trust in the person is central. Influencer manager contracts are regularly classified in case law as services of a higher nature – the manager provides a very personal service for the artist that is strongly based on individual support and loyalty.
• No fixed remuneration according to time periods: In addition, Section 627 BGB only applies if the remuneration is not based on periods of time. This means: If the fee is not agreed as a regular salary (e.g. monthly), but is dependent on success or in commission/one-off payments, this standard applies. Many service contracts based on success fall under this. In the context of an influencer agency, this means that if the manager receives a percentage of orders placed (commission) instead of a fixed monthly salary, for example, this does not constitute “periodic remuneration”. A typical management or agency contract with revenue sharing therefore fulfills this requirement.

If both conditions apply, Section 627 BGB allows both parties to terminate the contract at any time without notice. This right exists in addition to other termination options (such as ordinary termination with notice or termination for good cause in accordance with Section 626 BGB). In practical terms, it is particularly relevant for those who want to terminate quickly without having to meet the strict standard of good cause. This is often the client (influencer/artist) who is dissatisfied with the manager’s performance or has lost trust. However, the service provider could also theoretically make use of this, for example if the collaboration with the artist becomes unacceptable – for example due to serious breaches of trust by the artist.

Legal consequence: Termination in accordance with Section 627 BGB takes effect immediately. There is no deadline; the contract ends upon receipt of the notice of termination. However, the law does provide some protection against abuse: Section 627 (2) BGB stipulates that the terminating party must pay compensation if it terminates at an “inopportune time”, i.e. at an unfavorable time for the other party. This compensation is intended, for example, to prevent a party under an obligation to perform a service from terminating without need shortly before the completion of a major project. In our case, this means that if the artist terminates his manager during an important ongoing campaign without good cause, he may have to compensate the manager for expenses or lost commissions. Nevertheless – the key point remains: The contract itself has ended; it is only a matter of subsequent compensation claims.

In summary, Section 627 BGB enshrines the fragility of relationships of trust in law: No one should be forced to continue a close personal collaboration if the foundation of trust is lacking. This has a massive impact on long-term influencer and artist contracts, as these are almost always based on personal support and are often remunerated based on success.

Applicability to contracts between influencers and agencies

Let us now look specifically at influencer agency contracts or artist-manager contracts: To what extent does such a business relationship fall under Section 627 BGB? The answer in legal practice is: As a rule, completely.

The typical contractual constellations in the media and entertainment industry usually fulfill the aforementioned requirements:

• Personal relationship of trust: An artist or influencer entrusts their manager/agent with sensitive areas of their career – contract negotiations, public relations, strategic decisions. This relationship is highly personal and comparable to traditional artist manager or player consultant relationships. The courts have repeatedly confirmed that these are services that are transferred on the basis of special personal trust. The success of an influencer depends not only on the influencer’s creativity, but also on the manager’s skill and commitment. Conversely, the manager invests time and reputation in the protégé. A bond of trust inevitably develops, similar to that of an entrepreneur with a management consultant or an athlete with his agent. Example: As early as the 1980s, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) qualified an artist management contract as a service of a higher nature and affirmed the fundamental applicability of Section 627 BGB. This line has been continued in subsequent case law.
• No remuneration by time period: In practice, influencer managers are usually paid via commissions – e.g. 20% of all commissions or sponsorship income procured by the agency. Fixed salaries are unusual. This means that remuneration is performance-related and not tied to fixed time intervals. This is precisely the scope of application of Section 627. If, on the other hand, the manager were employed on a fixed monthly lump sum, the situation would be different: Then there would be ongoing remuneration and Section 627 BGB would not apply. In many agency contracts, however, there is no such fixed remuneration, which would allow Section 627 BGB to apply in principle.

The combination of personal support and commission model therefore means that influencer contracts generally fall under Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB), unless otherwise agreed. For agencies and managers, this means that the influencer can terminate the contract immediately at any time without any special contractual precautions. This applies regardless of whether a specific term or notice period is actually stipulated in the contract. Even a contractually agreed multi-year commitment would be effectively nullified by a Section 627 termination – the law allows these shackles to be removed.

A simple calculation example illustrates the problem: An agency concludes a contract with an influencer for two years, which only provides for ordinary termination at the end of the contract. After one year, however, the influencer wants to switch to another agency. If there is no clause excluding Section 627 BGB, he could invoke the statutory right of termination and leave immediately. The remaining term of one year would be null and void. The original contractual commitment – however carefully formulated – would be broken by law. Under certain circumstances, the agency would be left without compensation, apart from a possible claim for damages in the event of “untimeliness”, which in practice is uncertain and difficult to quantify.

From a manager’s point of view, Section 627 of the German Civil Code is therefore a source of danger: it can undermine all the investments you have made in building up a talent. Particularly bitter: even exclusive contracts with a fixed term are not secure. There is therefore a strong interest in limiting or excluding this right of termination at any time in order to create planning security.

Contractual exclusion of § 627 BGB: Prerequisites and limits

In view of the far-reaching consequences, the key question arises: Can Section 627 BGB be excluded by contract? In other words, can the parties agree that this statutory right of termination should not apply, so that only the contractual termination provisions apply? The answer is basically: Yes, an exclusion is possible – but only under certain conditions and with certain restrictions.

Dispositivity of the norm:

First of all, it should be noted that Section 627 BGB is not a mandatory consumer protection provision, but is dispositive law. This means that the contracting parties can, in principle, agree something different. The principle of freedom of contract applies in particular to commercial transactions (B2B). An influencer who carries out their activity commercially and an agency can therefore agree to waive the immediate right of termination. Even in cases in which the artist would formally still be classified as a consumer, Section 627 BGB is not designated as unrestricted – unlike some other termination rights, there is no explicit prohibition of exclusion in the law. The prevailing doctrine in the literature therefore holds that Section 627 BGB can be waived as long as no other legal limits are violated.

Individual agreement vs. general terms and conditions:

However, the decisive factor is how the exclusion is agreed. If there is a negotiated individual contract that expressly states, for example, “The application of Section 627 BGB is excluded by mutual agreement”, this is generally effective. Both parties are thus consciously waiving the statutory right of termination. Such a waiver is comparable to other contractual arrangements, such as the exclusion of ordinary termination for a certain period of time. As long as the influencer enters into the waiver voluntarily and in an informed manner (ideally with legal advice), it is valid.

The situation may be different if the exclusion is hidden in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC). Agencies often use standard contracts for all their talent. One clause could read: “Section 627 BGB does not apply. Ordinary termination is excluded before the end of the minimum term.” In the event of a dispute, the court examines the clause in accordance with the standards of Sections 305 et seq. BGB (control of general terms and conditions). Section 307 BGB, which prohibits provisions that unreasonably disadvantage the contractual partner, is particularly relevant. A complete waiver of the statutory right of termination can be seen as a significant disadvantage to the influencer – after all, the influencer is deprived of an important right to shape the contract. In particular, if the contract provides for a long-term commitment, the influencer would have no means of self-defense against a broken relationship of trust if Section 627 were to be abolished. In the past, courts have viewed clauses that deprive the beneficiary of the right under Section 627 with skepticism. For example, a contractual clause in a model agency contract that excluded termination before the end of 2 years was declared invalid due to circumvention of Section 627 BGB. The inappropriateness lies in the fact that, in contrast to the dispositive law, the influencer is bound far more strictly without any compensation or special justification.

Transparency also plays a role: a clause must clearly indicate that the otherwise given right of termination does not apply. Hidden formulations or euphemisms (“long-term commitment is agreed”) that implicitly exclude Section 627 do not meet the requirements. In case of doubt, they will be surprising and therefore invalid, contrary to Section 305c BGB. The best practice is to regulate the waiver explicitly and clearly – e.g. in a separate paragraph.

Legal limits:

Even if formally effectively agreed, the contractual exclusion of Section 627 BGB is subject to statutory limitations. These include in particular

• § Section 626 BGB remains unaffected: The right to terminate without notice for good cause cannot be contractually excluded. Even if Section 627 is waived, it is of course still possible to terminate without notice for good cause (e.g. serious breach of duty, breach of trust, criminal offense). A complete waiver of termination for all cases would be ineffective, as it would also override Section 626 – the legal system does not permit this. In practice, this means that despite the exclusion of Section 627, an influencer can still terminate the contract for good cause (or the manager vice versa) if the requirements for this are met. However, the bar for this is known to be high.
• § Section 624 BGB – five-year limit: Section 624 BGB is a little-known but important provision. It states that in the case of an employment contract that has been entered into for longer than five years, ordinary termination with six months’ notice is possible after five years. This is regarded as a mandatory upper limit for commitments in the case of continuing obligations. If, for example, an agency contract was concluded for a fixed term of 10 years and Section 627 BGB is excluded, the influencer could terminate the contract after 5 years at the latest (even without good cause), despite a contractual clause to the contrary. § Section 624 BGB applies here as protection against excessive long-term gagging. This standard is mandatory and cannot be waived. When drafting the contract, it must therefore be borne in mind that a commitment of more than five years cannot be enforced – regardless of whether Section 627 has been excluded or not. Many contracts make do by providing for a basic term of two or three years with automatic renewal, for example, but it is not possible to tie anyone down for more than five years.
• Immorality (§ 138 BGB): In extreme cases, a comprehensive waiver of termination could be invalid as immoral. This would be conceivable, for example, if a young, commercially inexperienced artist is signed by an agency exclusively for 10 years, for example, and is deprived of any early exit option. The courts would then examine whether such a contract is tantamount to excessive restraint. In particular, if the influencer is effectively placed in a dependent position without consideration or special benefits, Section 138 BGB could apply. However, the hurdle is high: only particularly blatant cases of unequal negotiating power and unfair results fall under this. The usual 2-3-year contracts with the exclusion of Section 627 are not considered immoral per se, especially as influencers usually act as entrepreneurs and want to profit themselves. Nevertheless, there must be a reasonable relationship. A rigid long-term commitment with no exit and complete dependency would cast doubt on the effectiveness.

Effective design of an exclusion:

In order to reliably exclude Section 627 BGB, a clear and fair contractual approach should therefore be taken. The following points are recommended:

• Explicit clause: For example: “The parties agree that Section 627 BGB does not apply to this employment relationship. Ordinary termination is excluded during the agreed term of the contract.” This clearly sets out what is intended.
• Transparency through justification: Many contract lawyers add explanatory words to show in the event of a dispute that the clause was agreed deliberately and in the interests of both parties. For example: “As this contractual relationship is designed for long-term cooperation and is based on mutual trust, both parties waive the right to terminate the contract without notice in accordance with Section 627 BGB.” – Exactly this wording or something similar is common in practice. It signals: The special nature of the relationship is recognized, but this is precisely why the parties want stability and not the ability to terminate at any time. Such a justification can help to underpin the appropriateness of a GTC clause. It makes the clause less surprising, as it openly addresses the issue of trust services.
• Compensation through other rights: To prevent possible ineffectiveness, the influencer can at least be granted other termination options. For example, the clause could stipulate that after a certain minimum term, the contract may be terminated with a longer notice period, or that there are special termination rights in the event of certain events. This would somewhat mitigate the complete deprivation of rights.
• Document individual agreement: Ideally, the influencer should also negotiate the relevant contractual passage or at least consciously accept it (e.g. by signing this clause separately). Then, in case of doubt, it is no longer a GTC, but an individual agreement that is not subject to content review. Managers should proactively address such important points in the contract to avoid being left out in the cold later on.

Despite all the contractual possibilities, one fact remains: you can exclude § 627 BGB, but you cannot solve the problem of the loss of trust itself. If the personal chemistry is destroyed, no artist or manager will want to work together in the long term – contract or not. In practice, contractual clauses therefore only mean that a party who wants to leave prematurely has to enter into negotiations about a termination or severance payment instead of leaving immediately. Legally, however, a valid exclusion brings considerable advantages for the agency: the influencer cannot leave unilaterally and without notice without at least risking contractual consequences.

Long-term contracts and formulation tips

Influencer and artist contracts are often designed for the long term. It is precisely in this context that the exclusion of Section 627 BGB is particularly useful, but also vulnerable. Here are some aspects that are relevant for long-term contracts:

1. intention of long-term cooperation: Many contracts contain a preamble or clause – often at the beginning – which emphasizes that the parties are aiming for a trusting, long-term cooperation. One example has already been mentioned above: “This contractual relationship is designed for long-term cooperation and is based on mutual trust.” Such wording emphasizes the special nature of the relationship. However, it is not sufficient in itself to exclude Section 627. On the contrary, it describes exactly the situation in which Section 627 BGB normally applies! It is therefore essential to additionally clarify that there is nevertheless no right of termination at any time.

2. minimum terms and extensions: It is customary to specify a minimum term for long-term contracts (e.g. 2 or 3 years), during which ordinary termination – and, thanks to the exclusion of Section 627, extraordinary termination without cause – is not possible. At the end of the minimum term, the contract is often automatically extended by a further year unless notice of termination is given. This mechanism respects the 5-year limit of Section 624 of the German Civil Code (BGB), as the contract can be terminated after five years at the latest, and still creates a medium-term commitment. It is important that the minimum term is reasonable: the longer it is, the more likely a court could ask whether it is still appropriate, especially if the influencer was in a weaker position. Terms of between 1 and 3 years are customary and accepted in the industry. Anything longer requires good reasons.

3. protection of trust vs. planning security: Long-term cooperation in a relationship of trust is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is based on trust – if this is lost, further cooperation makes little sense. On the other hand, a long-term strategy (e.g. for an up-and-coming influencer) requires consistency and planning security. When the contract is concluded, both parties are usually convinced of their mutual success and want stability. The contract should reflect this desire without completely ignoring the legitimate interests of both parties. It is advisable to create a certain balance: For example, the contract could include a mechanism that, in the event of a conflict, mediation or a round of talks will be attempted first before parting ways. Such soft clauses do not replace section 627, but they do show that the commitment is not blindly adhered to if the relationship has broken down.

4. example of a balanced clause text: A model contract clause could look like this (simplified):

“The parties are aware of the special trusting nature of their cooperation. Nevertheless, they agree that an ordinary right of termination before the end of the contract term is excluded; § 627 BGB does not apply. The contract term is 24 months and is extended by 12 months in each case unless it is terminated with 3 months’ notice to the end of the term. The right to terminate for good cause remains unaffected. In the event of significant problems of trust, the parties shall first hold a clarifying discussion in order to find an amicable solution.”

This clause (or similar) would typically balance the interests in a long-term influencer contract: No short-term departure, but still exit points and, of course, the option to invoke good cause at any time. Important: Even the best clause is of little use if it is ultimately ineffective. Therefore, wording that makes too harsh an impression should be avoided. Words such as “trust” and “long-term” have a positive justifying effect and can increase the acceptance of a strict termination rule (within the meaning of Section 307 BGB, which takes into account the overall circumstances).

5. documentation of long-term nature: Agencies often emphasize long-term support in marketing materials or verbal negotiations. Caution: If a legal dispute arises, the influencer could argue that they did not even realize that they did not have the option of an early exit. It is therefore advisable to state in writing (e.g. in a negotiation protocol or the preamble) that the long-term commitment has been consciously entered into. This makes it more difficult to claim later that the clause was surprising or that you did not understand its scope.

The bottom line is that long-term contracts are common and necessary in the industry. The exclusion of Section 627 BGB can be a game changer here, as it determines whether the planned term is actually valid or not worth the paper it is written on. Careful wording and conscious agreement between the parties are the key to legally enforcing the long-term nature of the contract.

Difference: Exclusive manager vs. agency with several influencers

Not all mentoring relationships in the influencer or artist sector are created equal. There are roughly two models:

(a) The exclusive “manager model”: Here, a manager or a small management company looks after a single artist (or very few) very intensively and usually exclusively. Examples: A music manager who only manages one band, or a personal agent of a top influencer. The relationship is often similar to personal management.

(b) The “agency model” with many clients: Here, an agency has a pool of influencers/artists under contract. Each influencer is one of many, and the agency provides similar services for all of them (arranging advertising deals, campaign management, etc.). The support is more personal than with purely automated platforms, but the agency resources are still divided between many talents.

What are the differences with regard to § 627 BGB and termination regulations?

• Intensity of the relationship of trust: In the manager model, the relationship of trust is often even more pronounced. The manager and artist may work closely together on a daily basis; the manager could almost act as an “extended arm” of the artist. This is indisputably a service of a higher nature. A termination under Section 627 would hit both parties hard because the relationship is unique. The manager’s motivation to exclude Section 627 is particularly high here – the manager’s entire livelihood may depend on this one client. Conversely, the artist will also be very careful about who they choose as their manager, because they are effectively putting themselves in their hands.In the agency model, the relationship of trust is also important (no influencer will stay with an agency they don’t trust), but it is spread out somewhat: the individual influencer receives support, but often not from a single person, but from a team. If a single person fails, the agency can provide a replacement. From a court’s perspective, however, this is also a personal employment relationship – the influencer trusts the agency as a whole, or the contact person at the agency. The quality of trust is more institutional (trust in the brand/professionalism of the agency) plus personal trust in the manager responsible. Legally, this makes no difference: Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB) can also apply, as the law does not differentiate between individual or team-oriented support.
• Standardization vs. individuality: Individual manager contracts are often negotiated individually, tailored to the artist. In this case, there is a high probability that the contract is not a GTC, but an individual agreement – which favors the effectiveness of a § 627 exclusion (because there is no content control). The parties are free to determine what they want as long as there is no immorality, whereas in agency contracts with many influencers, the agency usually uses standard contracts. These contain identical clauses for all talents. An influencer, especially if they are new or not very influential, rarely has the negotiating power to push through changes. They will have to sign the contract “as is”. This increases the risk that clauses – including any exclusion of termination – will be treated as GTCs. Any group of cases where courts have already examined similar clauses can then become relevant. For example, in a case involving an artist management agency, the Berlin Court of Appeal applied strict standards to an exclusion of termination, as the contract was clearly pre-formulated. Conclusion: In the agency model, the wording has to be even more careful to ensure that the clause withstands a GTC review, whereas in the individual manager model, the negotiation is more individual and therefore more legally robust.
• Multiple ties and competition: Another difference: With exclusive managers, it is common for the artist not to involve any other managers – there is exclusivity in both directions. With agencies, it is theoretically possible for an influencer to have several agencies for different areas (e.g. one agency for YouTube and one for modeling jobs). Contracts may contain competition clauses. A termination without notice under Section 627 would end everything in an exclusive relationship; in the agency model, the influencer could possibly have other partners. Although this makes no direct difference to the legal aspect of the termination exclusion, it does influence the contract strategy: exclusive managers will insist on stronger ties (otherwise their protégé will be completely gone), while agencies know that an influencer could look for other sources of income if necessary.
• Impact of a breach of trust: In a one-on-one relationship (manager and sole artist), a breach usually means the end of the manager’s livelihood or a career crisis for the artist – so it’s “all or nothing”. With agencies, the impact of a single departure is usually lower: the agency loses one client out of many; the influencer loses a service provider, but may be able to find another agency. This pragmatic consideration is reflected in the contract design: individual managers tend to agree longer contract terms and stronger restrictions on termination because they have more to lose if the artist leaves. Agencies are more likely to calculate with a fluctuation and often set shorter terms (sometimes only 1 year with automatic renewal) – but also paired with clauses that exclude terminations during the term in order to at least have this period secure. In fact, at large agencies you occasionally see moderate clauses such as “The contract can be terminated for the first time at the end of the first year” – which de facto excludes Section 627 for 1 year. Individual managers, on the other hand, aim for a 3-5 year commitment, for example, because they invest exclusive time.

In summary, manager contracts are usually more individually tailored and potentially stricter in terms of commitment, while agency contracts are standardized and tend to be for a shorter term. § However, Section 627 BGB is in principle equally relevant in both scenarios. From the perspective of the influencer concerned, it may make a psychological difference whether he is “just one of many” in an agency – in which case he is more likely to leave if dissatisfied – or whether he has a personal manager to whom he also owes loyalty. Legally, however, the right to terminate the contract freely remains, unless it is validly waived.

For managers and agencies, this means that no matter which model you operate under, the contractual exclusion of section 627 should be checked. Enforcement and control may follow different rules depending on the type of contract (GTC control vs. individual contract), but the need to protect against sudden departures is universal.

Excursus: Professional footballers and player consultants – parallels and differences

The world of professional soccer provides an illustrative comparative example. There, too, closely confidential service contracts exist between players and their advisors/agents. Many professional footballers engage a player consultant who negotiates transfers, arranges sponsorship contracts and acts as a career advisor. The situation is similar to that of artist managers in many respects:

• Contractual nature: Player consultant contracts are generally service contracts of a special kind. A player chooses his trusted advisor, who provides personal consulting and representation services. Remuneration is usually in the form of a commission on the successful conclusion of a player contract or an extension (often in the form of a percentage of the player’s salary or a fixed bonus for each contract concluded). There is rarely a fixed monthly fee. This means that the requirements of Section 627 BGB are also met here – a personal relationship of trust and no fixed remuneration. According to the BGB, the player could therefore dismiss his advisor at any time without notice.
• Contract terms and regulations: However, the professional soccer business is international and regulated. In Germany, there were/are association rules (DFB player consultant regulations, FIFA regulations) that limit the duration of contracts between players and consultants – often to a maximum of two years. For example, an earlier DFB regulation stipulated that consultancy contracts must not run for longer than two years in order not to tie players down for too long. FIFA rules also recommended similar limits. These regulations effectively act as a forced termination date: After 2 years, the player can change (or re-sign) the consultant. Legally, this is association law and not state law, but it shows the basic idea: long commitments in a relationship of trust are considered problematic.
• Exclusion of Section 627 in consultancy agreements: In many player contracts with consultants, there is a clause – analogous to artist contracts – that excludes ordinary termination during the term. For example: “The contract runs until 30.06.2025 and cannot be terminated during this time.” Conversely, this excludes § 627 BGB (since termination without notice and without cause would constitute a form of ordinary termination). According to the consultants, players who are dissatisfied should at least remain bound until the end of their contract. Whether such clauses hold up has been the subject of some controversy in the past. One well-known case concerned a player who left his advisor prematurely to be represented by another – the original advisor sued for lost commission for a later transfer. The court considered whether or not the contract had been terminated by player termination under section 627. In that case, the exclusion clause was deemed valid as the player was considered a professional entrepreneur and had knowingly concluded the contract with the support of his club. He therefore had to pay damages because he had terminated his contract at an inopportune time. This case shows that contractual commitment with a waiver of the free right of termination is also possible in sport, but it depends on the circumstances.
• Breaches of trust in sport: Sometimes a situation arises in which a player no longer trusts his advisor (e.g. due to accusations of breach of duty or simply dissatisfaction with a lack of transfers). In this case, there could objectively be good cause that would justify termination without notice despite exclusion – e.g. if the advisor has demonstrably worked against the player’s interests. Often, however, the chemistry is simply bad without the consultant being in breach of duty. In such cases, the same mechanisms apply as with artists: without a § 627 exclusion, the player could simply terminate the contract; with an exclusion, he is theoretically bound, but in practice a termination agreement is usually reached (often in return for waiving commission or payment of a compensation sum).
• Market difference: In soccer, player consultants change relatively frequently; it is almost “normal” for a player to change agents every few years, whether at the end of the contract or sometimes even before. For this reason, many consultancy contracts are deliberately short-lived (one or two years). The player can then legally reorient himself. Consultants often rely on customer satisfaction rather than contractual obligation in order to be extended. In the influencer sector, on the other hand, the market is even less regulated and standardized. Influencer contracts sometimes run much longer because they want to keep the “customer” for longer and no association puts a stop to this.

In summary, player consultant contracts are a parallel field in which Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB) theoretically applies in the same way and is defused in practice by clever contract drafting. Experience there teaches us: Short contract terms, combined with (where permissible) exclusion of the free right of termination, are common practice. They are accepted by the industry because everyone knows that trust is key, but also that you can’t force anyone forever. Legal advice is also common here – top players have their contracts checked by lawyers, as do consultants. Influencers and managers should take a leaf out of their book: It pays to negotiate contract terms professionally in order to create clarity.

Conclusion: Draft contracts carefully – use the help of a lawyer

The legal analysis clearly shows that Section 627 BGB can become a stumbling block for agencies and managers if it is ignored. In an unregulated state, this standard allows an artist or influencer to terminate the supposedly fixed commitment at short notice as soon as they lose confidence or sense better offers. For management, this means uncertainty – investments in the talent’s career may not pay off because the contract ends prematurely.

The good news is that this risk can be managed by drafting contracts with foresight. An effective exclusion or at least a restriction of Section 627 BGB is feasible and common in the industry. However, the wording of such a clause is a balancing act. It must be clear, legally sound and fair so that it holds up in an emergency. Particular care is required when using standard contracts (general terms and conditions) in order to avoid falling foul of Section 307 BGB. It is also important not to lose sight of other termination rights (such as Section 626 BGB or the 5-year clause in Section 624 BGB).

Agencies and managers should not be afraid to seek professional legal advice when drawing up contracts with influencers or artists. A lawyer specializing in media and contract law – like the author of this blog post – knows the pitfalls and knows which clauses are accepted by the courts and which are not. He can suggest suitable individual solutions: for example, combinations of term, waiver of termination and special termination rights that safeguard the business relationship without unduly restricting the contractual partner.

From the agencies’ point of view, it is essential to create contractual planning security. This means that if you invest in an influencer, the contract should be designed in such a way that they cannot leave overnight. At the same time, the contractual partner must retain the feeling that they are being treated fairly – because a completely one-sided contract will only provoke the next termination (with the help of a resourceful court if necessary). Legal precision and balanced drafting pay off here.

Finally, it should be emphasized that relationships of trust are sensitive entities. No contract in the world can guarantee that a broken relationship will continue – nor should it. Instead, the art of the contract lies in establishing clear rules for the worst-case scenario. This way, both sides know where they stand and, in the event of a break-up, there is an orderly process (instead of a legal vacuum or knee-jerk actions). Managers and agencies who optimize their contracts in this way protect their business and signal professionalism. And influencers/artists who sign such contracts know in advance what they are getting into – which ultimately also promotes a stable relationship of trust.