Please note that all my articles are for informational purposes only and not legal advice. I assume no liability for the content of my articles. The articles may be out of date, the legal situation may have changed, or the specific situation in a case may need to be assessed differently. A binding consultation can only be given by me directly in the individual case. Take advantage of my free brief consultation!
A few days ago, I reported that the Düsseldorf Regional Court kept the flying jurisdiction for legal issues on YouTube alive(see this blog post). Now the OLG Düsseldorf has overturned this ruling and allows the jurisdiction to die again.
In fact, the OLG Düsseldorf ruled in a decision on Tuesday that the restriction of the flying jurisdiction in Sec. 14 para. 2 p. 3 no. 1 UWG (amended only in December of last year) should not be interpreted restrictively against the wording. According to the court, the restriction should not only apply to competition violations that require action in electronic commerce or via telemedia.
Thus, even for the publication of promotional videos on YouTube, the court would have to be chosen that has jurisdiction over the person who published or uploaded the video (for example, the registered office or place of residence). Thus, whether the publication of a video leads to a violation of the prohibition of misleading statements, for example, or whether the legal question is linked to the distribution channel, is now irrelevant for the determination of the court’s jurisdiction.
Marian Härtel is a lawyer and entrepreneur specializing in copyright law, competition law and IT/IP law, with a focus on games, esports, media and blockchain.
