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. “
LATEST ARTICLES
Contract law: For the drafting of contracts in construction law
In construction law, especially in the area of plant construction, the general contractor regularly commissioned assumes very considerable risks. A charming way for them to limit these risks can be to pass on contracts or individual relevant contractual terms to their subcontractors.
Influencer advertising: The legal confusion set in motion by the Association of Social Competition (VSW) continues.
In the case of Kathy Hummels, the Munich Regional Court (judgment of 29.4.2019, Ref. 4 HK O 14312/18)) considers unpaid posts with product mentions to be obviously advertising and therefore not subject to labeling. This continues the legal confusion set in motion by the Association of Social Competition (VSW).
CONTACT
+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Neuer Wall 61 D-20354 Hamburg
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE
