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

Are You Covered Healthcare Insurance Protection Concept

Liability law

The obligation of private health insurance (PKV) to pay benefits – when and for what does PKV have to pay?

LEGAL+ NEWS The obligation of private health insurance (PKV) to

Tax advisor liability – statute of limitations in the case of basic rulings

If tax advisors make mistakes and clients suffer losses as a result, the question of whether and to what extent a limitation period has already expired is not easy to answer in legal terms.

Every company claiming credit should check claims for repayment! – On the inadmissibility of so-called processing fees in loan agreements with companies.

According to recent rulings by the Federal Court of Justice (judgments of 4 July 2017, case no. XI ZR 562/15 and case no. XI ZR 233/16), processing fees that have been customary for a long time are also inadmissible for loans to companies and thus corresponding agreements in loan agreements – even in the case of overdraft facilities – are invalid.