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
Recent case law of the BGH on the requirements for a quality agreement that has not been expressly made
on the requirements for a quality agreement that has not been expressly concluded
Warranty exclusion: Liability for merely “conclusively” agreed quality between the parties?
Warranty exclusions are widespread in contract law. As a rule, buyers or clients are also prepared to accept such limitations of the contractual partner’s liability – to varying degrees, of course….
BGH on late submissions in appeal proceedings
In a decision of great practical relevance, the Federal Court of Justice has reminded that means of attack and defense, which have already been disregarded by the court of first instance, may in many …
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
