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

Approaching the bench in a courtroom with gavel and judge seat for law and order trial proceedings

Liability law

Courts must generally comply with their so-called duty to provide information (Section 139 ZPO) before the oral hearing! – BGH ruling from 11.4.2018 (case no. VII ZR 177/17)

Unfortunately, it is common practice in civil proceedings for the courts to only issue instructions to the parties during the oral hearing. The BGH dealt with the consequences of this practice in a practice-relevant decision dated 11.4.2018 (case no. VII ZR 177/17).

On the scope of a so-called “pleading discount

When are submissions in the appeal instance “new”?

Casting doubt on the right of competition associations to file applications!

So-called. warning letters (cf. § 8 Para. 3 No. 2 UWG) are causing the economy a lot of trouble. Smaller companies or start-ups in particular often cannot afford to defend themselves.