• Mehr als 3 Millionen Wörter Inhalt
  • |
  • info@itmedialaw.com
  • |
  • Tel: 03322 5078053
Kurzberatung
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

No products in the cart.

  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

OLG Cologne: Jameda partially inadmissible

15. November 2019
in Competition law, Law on the Internet
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0 0
A A
0
Horsch, Willy GNU Free Documentation License

Horsch, Willy GNU Free Documentation License

Key Facts
  • Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled that Jameda grants inadmissible benefits to paying doctors, thereby violating its neutral role.
  • The court objected to the fact that basic profiles of doctors referred to other doctors, whereas this did not apply to premium customers.
  • Different presentations between basic and premium customers that create a visual difference are also not permitted.
  • References to specialist articles for premium customers should not be hidden; this creates false impressions about basic doctors.
  • Reference to additional doctors in special areas was also a hidden benefit for premium customers.
  • Court bases doctors' claims on Sections 823 (2), 1004 BGB analogously with reference to GDPR.
  • Revision is permitted for both sides in order to clarify the role of the platforms as neutral information intermediaries.

To the overview

Content Hide
1. To the overview
2. The problematic functions
3. In detail
3.1. Author: Marian Härtel

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne issued an exciting ruling yesterday, which also provides information on the permissible design of many other comparison and rating platforms in all other sectors on the basis of the associated BGH case law.

In this case, two doctors successfully sued Jameda for deletion of the profile they had created without their consent. The OLG deemed numerous functions to be inadmissible, with which Jameda leaves the permissible role of “neutral information provider” and grants “hidden advantages” to paying doctors in an inadmissible manner.

The problematic functions

The court objected to the fact that the profile of the plaintiff , which was set up without consent, referred to a list of other doctors, while the profiles of the doctors who pay contributions to Jemeda did not contain such a reference. It was also inadmissible that the paying doctors were shown in listings with a picture, while only a gray silhouette was shown for the other doctors. The same applies to the reference to specialist articles by paying doctors, while no such reference is made on the profiles of platinum customers. Finally, the reference to a list of doctors for special treatment areas, which is also not visible on the profiles of paying doctors, is also inadmissible.

Unlike the Regional Court, which had deemed the entire design of the platform to be inadmissible at first instance, the Higher Regional Court examined the various functions on a case-by-case basis. According to the case law of the BGH, the decisive factor was whether the platform had abandoned its fundamentally protected position as a “neutral information intermediary” by providing “hidden benefits” to paying customers. This would be the case if the basic customers who were added to the portal without their consent were used as an “advertising platform” for premium customers and the latter were granted an advantage through the presentation that was not recognizable to the users. Then the portal is no longer just for the exchange of information between patients. In this case, doctors would not have to accept being listed as basic customers without their consent.

With the functions described above, the portal is leaving its function as a “neutral information intermediary”.

In detail

The button, which has since been removed and was used to display “other” doctors in the immediate vicinity on the profile of basic customers, but not for premium customers, gave the incorrect impression that premium customers had no local competition. The button displayed for basic customers was to be seen as a “jump-off platform” to the profiles of other doctors. It was not clear to users why a reference to local competition was displayed for a basic profile, but not for a premium profile. Even if the platform had removed the button in the meantime, it could be ordered to cease and desist, as there was a risk of repetition.

The different visual presentation between basic and premium customers in listings also represents a hidden advantage – in contrast to the visual presentation on the individual profiles. This creates a considerable “visual gap” between basic customers and premium customers, whereby the platform intervenes in the competition between local competitors in the run-up to the final choice of doctor.

The fact that users are referred to specialist articles by other doctors on the profile of basic customers, which is not the case for platinum customers, also constitutes an unlawful hidden advantage. This gives users the incorrect impression that basic customers do not want to or cannot publish corresponding specialist articles. In fact, however, this function can only be used if the doctor books a premium package. In any case, if the displayed articles came from paying doctors who practiced at a distance of up to 100 km from non-paying doctors, a possible competitive situation would arise.

Finally, the reference on the profile of basic customers to doctors with special areas of treatment in the same specialist field was also an impermissible hidden advantage. The hyperlink could give the user the impression that the doctor may not be sufficiently qualified because his profile refers to other colleagues for the “special” medical field, whereas in the case of premium customers, no reference could encourage patients to continue their search for the most qualified doctor possible.

In legal terms, the court based the plaintiffs’ claim for deletion of the profile set up without consent and for injunctive relief against the specific forms of infringement on Sections 823 para. 2, 1004 BGB analogous in conjunction with Art. 1 f) GDPR. In this context, it decided that the review platform cannot rely on the so-called media privilege of the General Data Protection Regulation (Art. 85 para. 2 GDPR). The platform’s business model could not be seen as its own opinion-forming activity, but at best as an auxiliary service for the better dissemination of (third-party) information.

However, the Senate did not object to other functions of the portal, such as the option for premium customers to specify the medical services offered on their profile to a greater extent than for basic customers. In this respect, the Senate dismissed the actions of the two plaintiffs following the successful appeal by the rating platform.

The Senate allowed the appeal for both sides in both proceedings, as the question of in which cases a review platform leaves the role of a “neutral information intermediary” has not yet been fully clarified in supreme court case law and will be important for a large number of future proceedings. The decision of the Federal Court of Justice from 20.02.2019 (VI ZR 301/17) only referred to an individual case regarding the design of the review platform.

Marian Härtel
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: BghButtonCase lawChatFederal courtInformationLawsuitModelPortalPrivacyRegulation

Weitere spannende Blogposts

ECJ rulings on compensation for data protection breaches

District Court Frankfurt a.M. on the right to be forgotten
26. June 2024

Analysis of the ECJ rulings In its recent decisions C-687/21 and C-340/21, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provided important...

Read moreDetails

“More than just a game” in Frankfurt

7. November 2022

Tomorrow, a symposium for lawyers focusing on computer games and digital media will be held in Frankfurt. I will also...

Read moreDetails

Building sustainable trust with professional contracts

Building sustainable trust with professional contracts
14. March 2023

Trust is a central factor in any business relationship. With professional contracts, companies can build sustainable trust between themselves and...

Read moreDetails

A comprehensive guide to the imprint requirement for streamers

A comprehensive guide to the imprint requirement for streamers
5. November 2018

In recent weeks, I have received numerous inquiries regarding the imprint requirement for Twitch streamers and YouTubers. Therefore, I decided...

Read moreDetails

Innovations in data protection law: ECJ ruling lowers hurdles for GDPR fines

Innovations in data protection law: ECJ ruling lowers hurdles for GDPR fines
8. January 2024

The judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of December 5, 2023 in case C-807/21 concerns the interpretation of...

Read moreDetails

Cookies for advertising purposes only with the active consent of the user

ECJ: Cookies require explicit consent of users
5. June 2020

The BGH has ruled on the question of the requirements for consent to telephone advertising and the storage of cookies...

Read moreDetails

Influencer merchandise and the new EU product safety regulation

f76e6084d2f8ff77279f6149c9676597
4. July 2024

The influencer market is booming and more and more content creators are discovering the lucrative business with their own merchandise....

Read moreDetails

BGH: State not liable for Corona defaults

BGH considers Uber Black to be anti-competitive
3. August 2023

The III Civil Senate of the German Federal Supreme Court today ruled on the question of whether the state is...

Read moreDetails

Risks when using and offering no-code platforms as SaaS

Risks when using and offering no-code platforms as SaaS
10. July 2023

At first glance, the title of this blog post might seem like a winner in the contest for most anglicisms...

Read moreDetails
Modding in EULAs and contracts – what applies legally in Germany?
Law and computer games

Modding in EULAs and contracts – what applies legally in Germany?

8. September 2025

Mods add new content to video games, improve graphics or add completely new ways of playing. Hardly any major PC...

Read moreDetails
Arbitration agreements in EULAs and developer contracts

Arbitration agreements in EULAs and developer contracts

7. September 2025
Chain of title in game development: building a clean chain of rights

Chain of title in game development: building a clean chain of rights

6. September 2025
Fail-fast clauses in media productions – what are they actually?

Fail-fast clauses in media productions – what are they actually?

5. September 2025
Founder’s agreement vs. shareholder agreement: setting the course for startups at an early stage

Founder’s agreement vs. shareholder agreement: setting the course for startups at an early stage

12. August 2025

Podcastfolge

c9c5d7fd380061a8018074c2ca5a81bf

Startups and innovation in Germany – challenges and opportunities

26. September 2024

This insightful podcast episode takes an in-depth look at the startup and innovation landscape in Germany and Europe. The discussion...

Read moreDetails
AI in law: opportunities, risks and regulation – the IT Media Law Podcast Episode 3

AI in law: opportunities, risks and regulation – the IT Media Law Podcast Episode 3

24. September 2024
Legal challenges in the gaming universe: A guide for developers, esports professionals and gamers

What will 2025 bring for start-ups in legal terms? Opportunities? Risks?

24. January 2025
da884f9e2769f2f96d6b74255be62c27

The role of the IT lawyer

5. September 2024
Looking to the future: How technology is changing the law

Looking to the future: How technology is changing the law

18. February 2025

Video

My transparent billing

My transparent billing

10. February 2025

In this video, I talk a bit about transparent billing and how I communicate what it costs to work with...

Read moreDetails
Fascination between law and technology

Fascination between law and technology

10. February 2025
My two biggest challenges are?

My two biggest challenges are?

10. February 2025
What really makes me happy

What really makes me happy

10. February 2025
What I love about my job!

What I love about my job!

10. February 2025
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Contact
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
Marian Härtel, Rathenaustr. 58a, 14612 Falkensee, info@itmedialaw.com

Marian Härtel - Rechtsanwalt für IT-Recht, Medienrecht und Startups, mit einem Fokus auf innovative Geschäftsmodelle, Games, KI und Finanzierungsberatung.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung