Streaming setup, influencers and contract law

In a ruling dated February 5, 2026, the Regional Court of Bonn (case no. 19 O 190/24) decided a highly relevant question for the influencer and creator business in a case I was involved in: How are contracts for the supply of streaming hardware, including assembly, installation and configuration, to be legally classified – as a contract for work and services or as a purchase contract with supplementary services?

The decision is relevant in practice because professional influencer setups regularly consist of a mixture of hardware delivery, configuration, testing and ongoing adjustments. It is precisely at this interface that most conflicts arise in practice – often with considerable financial consequences.

The legal situation: purchase, service or work contract?

From a legal perspective, the classification of technical projects depends largely on which part of the service characterizes the contract. The distinction is not new, but is often underestimated in the influencer environment:

• A contract for work and services (Section 631 BGB) requires that a specific result capable of acceptance is owed.
• A service contract (§ 611 BGB) only obliges the employee to work diligently, not to succeed.
• A purchase contract (Section 433 BGB) exists if the transfer of ownership of an item – such as hardware – is the main focus; assembly and installation can be ancillary or additional services.

The Regional Court of Bonn clarifies that it is not subjective expectations but the offer, service description, general terms and conditions, remuneration structure and actual implementation that are decisive

Key message of the judgment

The court did not classify the contract in dispute as a contract for work and services, but as a mixed contract with a focus on sales law. The decisive factor was in particular:

• The remuneration mainly related to commercially available standard hardware.
• Setup, installation and configuration were billed separately on a time basis.
• There was no concrete definition of the success owed (e.g. specific performance parameters, acceptance criteria or functional guarantees).

Literally, the court clarifies that in the absence of a definition of a definable success, there is regularly no contract for work, even if the client subjectively expects a “functioning overall system”.

The consequence:
Withdrawal from the entire contract is ruled out if the hardware components supplied are free of defects and the services were not completely worthless.

Importance for influencers and management structures

This decision is particularly important in the influencer environment. In practice, there is always a structural misunderstanding:

Influencers often assume that technical service providers automatically owe a perfectly functioning setup.

This is not legally tenable without a corresponding contractual provision.

Who expects that:

• one studio achieves exactly the same performance as another setup,
• streams run stably under all circumstances,
• certain software or hardware configurations are guaranteed,

must define these expectations precisely in the contract. Otherwise, it remains an obligation to perform – with all the consequences for warranty rights, remuneration and withdrawal.

Why contracts are crucial in the influencer business

The decision shows very clearly that technical disputes in court are not decided technically, but contractually. The relevant factors are not Twitch clips, crash reports or subjective dissatisfaction, but:

• What was specifically agreed?
• Was a success owed – and if so, which one?
• How is the remuneration structured?
• How are change requests, extensions and subsequent improvements regulated?

Particularly in the case of influencers, agencies and creator companies, the contractual situation is often historically grown, informal or fragmented. This increases the risk considerably.

Practical relevance: experience with influencer contracts

The legal classification of such projects requires an understanding of both the technical processes and the economic reality of the influencer market. Streaming setups are not static products, but dynamic systems that change with content formats, platform requirements and personal workflow.

This is precisely why a clear contractual structure is crucial: clear delimitation of services, transparent remuneration models, unambiguous regulations on changes, liability and warranty. The ruling by Bonn Regional Court confirms that courts take these structures seriously – and make decisions based on them.

Conclusion

The ruling ) makes it clear that anyone working with technology in the influencer business should not regard contracts as a formality. Without clearly defined success, there is no contract for work – and without a contract for work, many supposedly “self-evident” expectations do not apply legally.

The same therefore applies to influencers, agencies and technical service providers: Contracts decide. Not the expectation, not the technology, not the hassle afterwards.

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.