BGH ruling "Influencer II"

LEGAL+ NEWS

In its “Influencer II” ruling, the Federal Court of Justice clarified in response to rejected claims by the VSW (“Association of Social Competition”) that the influencer only has to provide an advertising label for their post if they receive a consideration from the company in question. The press release states:

In the press release states:

“(…) With regard to commercial acts in favor of third-party companies, the assumption of a violation of Section 5a para. 6 UWG is ruled out because the defendant did not receive any consideration for the contested contributions and these contributions therefore satisfy the overriding special provisions of Section 6 para. 1 no. 1 TMG, Section 58 para. 1 sentence 1 RStV and Section 22 para. 1 sentence 1 MStV (see the above comments on proceedings I ZR 125/20). Accordingly, there is also no violation of No. 11 of the Annex to Section 3 (3) UWG. “

Do you have any questions?

LATEST ARTICLES

Nicht kategorisiert

Up to €10,000 before the local court: why it goes wrong

Up to €10,000 in the local court – a mistake with an announcement. The planned reform of the amount in dispute will shift masses of proceedings from the regional courts to the local courts. Sounds like a relief – but will have the opposite effect.

Contract law: Stuttgart 21 and the speech clause – a lesson in clear contract drafting

Sometimes a single sentence decides billions. This is exactly what happened with the Stuttgart 21 project. At the center of the legal dispute was a short contractual provision – the so-called “speech clause”.

Breach of an international jurisdiction agreement can result in liability for damages! – On the ruling of the BGH from 17.10.2019 (Ref. III ZR 42/19)

International agreements on jurisdiction, especially if they are to have exclusive validity, generally have the purpose of protecting the party benefiting from the agreement from the often very considerable costs of a legal dispute in a foreign country.

Unfortunately, however, it is not uncommon for the other contracting party to suddenly no longer want to know about the jurisdiction agreement in the event of a dispute. The background to such a dishonest approach is – obviously – not least the potential for blackmail associated with such an approach. This is because the party that finds itself – in breach of the jurisdiction agreement – exposed to a foreign lawsuit is regularly forced to take action abroad through lawyers in order to avoid legal disadvantages. This in turn is often very expensive, with the USA being the most prominent example.