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

Minimal workspace mobile phone gavel cup of coffee on wood table.

Commercial law

Enforcement order legally binding – What else can help?

LEGAL+ NEWS Enforcement order legally binding – What else can

BGH eliminates widespread misunderstanding of its case law on the application of warranty law for material defects when purchasing shares (judgment of 26.09.2018, case no. VIII ZR 187/17)

BGH eliminates widespread misunderstanding of its case law on the application of warranty law for material defects when purchasing shares! A comprehensive exclusion of statutory warranty claims in the share purchase agreement does not fundamentally preclude the application of Section 313 BGB (frustration of contract)!

What do so-called media agencies do? – An analysis of the usual contractual relationships in the media business.

“By their legal nature, media agency agreements are generally to be qualified as agency agreements in which one party (media agency) undertakes to carry out an independent economic activity to safeguard the financial interests of third parties (in particular media planning and buying) and the other party (advertising client) undertakes to pay a fee.” (BGH ruling from 16.6.2016, ref. III ZR 282/14)