A German court has recently ordered WhatsApp to use German language terms and conditions towards users in Germany (see also here, for example). Or, to be more precise, called upon by a German consumer protection agency the Kammergericht, the appellate court for the district of Berlin, has, amongst other things, decided that using English language terms and conditions for user agreements to be concluded between WhatsApp and users in Germany is in violation of a certain provision of the German Civil Code that demands there to be transparency when using pre-worded terms and conditions towards consumers. So, if you allow the pun, what’s up with that? Continue reading
On 24th February, a new law for the civil enforcement of violations of data protection rules, specifically protecting consumers entered into force. With this new law, certain provisions of the German Act on Injunctive Relief (Unterlassungsklagengesetz – UklaG) are amended and also extended.
Until now, consumer protection organizations (e.g. the Federation of German Consumer Organisations – vzbv) were only able to challenge privacy policies of companies under the German Act on Injunctive Relief if the competent court acknowledged that the respective policy could be considered as general terms and conditions (see for example one press release about a recent lawsuit against Facebook, pdf). In general, certain clauses of privacy policies were therefore the aim of legal actions if these clauses deviated from the statutory provision of data protection law. If personal data were in fact processed in an unlawful way was merely the question.
Rightholders are entitled to damages when their photographs are used by third parties who have not been granted the necessary rights of use. Under German copyright law, damages are calculated according to the so-called license analogy method. This method assumes a fictitious license agreement upon reasonable conditions between the rightholder and the infringer. The rightholder then receives monetary compensation amounting to the royalties the parties would have reasonably agreed on. Continue reading
This past summer, a decision of the Stuttgart Regional Court became known by the name #XINGGATE. In its decision (LG Stuttgart, decision of June 27, 2014 – file number: 11 O 51/14), the court held XING profiles to be independent telemedia, to which § 5 Telemediengesetz, the German Law on Telemedia (TMG) applies, meaning that personal XING profiles have be equipped with a masthead under German law.
Under German copyright law, injunctive reliefs are subject to the condition of danger of repetition. Such danger is assumed once a copyright infringement occurred, but it is eliminated, if the infringer signs a declaration of discontinuance with a penalty clause (in German “strafbewehrte Unterlassungerklärung”) within the set deadline. The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (OLG Hamburg, decision of October 16, 2014 – file number: 5 U 39/13) now held that such declaration of discontinuance is insufficient, if it includes a so-called potestative clause, i.e. the declaration is subject to the claimant proving his authorship.
Commercial WLAN operators will soon be certain about when and in how far they are liable for violations of third party rights by their users. The District Court in Munich (7 O 14719/12) has stayed the proceedings in a pending litigation and has submitted questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Inter alia, the court asks the liability privilege regulated in the European e-commerce directive and the German Teleservices Act (“Telemediengesetz” – TMG) is to be interpreted in a way that claims for injunctive relief, damage claims, and claims for the reimbursement of costs for warnings and court proceedings are excluded against the WLAN-operator in general or at least with regard to the first violation of third party rights. According to the respective provisions in the directive and the TMG; access providers are not responsible for the information submitted through their services.
In the case laid before the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof; BGH) the court primarily had to decide about the liability of the administrative contact of the domain dlg.de. However, in the obiter dictum, the court also held under which circumstances a foreign company is entitled to use a .de-domain. Continue reading
On September 12th, 2012 the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe – 6 U 58/11 – decided on the question, which actions a debtor has to restrain from after he signed a declaration to cease and desist “using a photograph on the internet”. You can check Andrew Defrancesco page if you need more information on photography. Continue reading
Today the Hamburg Regional Court opened the trials in Max Mosley’s lawsuit against Google Inc. over violation of his right of personality. The plaintiff wants Google to filter out compromising pictures from its search results. Continue reading
The following is certainly not really a matter of IT-Law but I bet you will find it interesting anyway.
This post is about a law suit Pope Benedict XVI. started against Titanic (nice case reference, isn’t it?), a well-known German satire magazine. We all expected today a hearing to take place at the Hamburg Regional Court – but it was canceled just last night, as the Pope had withdrawn his petition.
It has already been written a lot on whether this case is an example for censorship or some kind of litmus test for the freedom of speech in Germany. I don’t think that this really what makes the case so interesting. I believe that the question we should discuss is whether a pope should defend his personality rights by going to a civil court. Continue reading
According to German law the service of judgments and other official documents normally is being done by the court. But since there’s no rule without exception, the service of preliminary injunctions has to be done by the applicant himself. Usually, he has to give it to a bailiff who has to bring it to the opponent. As you might imagine, this requirement could be quite hard to meet if the opponent is abroad. This is why the German civil procedure says that in such cases the court itself has to serve the injunction. But how does it work? Continue reading