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

Present your case...Serious young judge sitting in the courtroom with a stern facial expression.

Nicht kategorisiert

The court’s duty to provide information in civil proceedings

It is not uncommon for courts to simply remain silent until the first hearing date – in the worst case, years can pass until then. As a result, the parties do not know where they stand for a long time and eagerly await the hearing date, from which they hope to finally learn the court’s point of view. It is often only during the court hearing that judges then issue so-called judicial instructions in accordance with Section 139 (2) and (3) ZPO. This procedure is unlawful!

Reference to USB stick in the application

Our latest article analyzes the BGH ruling of 14.07.2022, which for the first time allows reference to a USB stick in the claim. Find out how this ruling expands the scope of digitalization in civil proceedings and what consequences it has for practice.

Action dismissed as “currently unfounded”

Disputes under construction law in particular often concern the due date of remuneration claims, e.g. because acceptance as a prerequisite for payment is questionable. In these cases, it is not uncommon for judgments to be handed down in which a claim is dismissed “as currently unfounded”.

The BGH recently stated in detail that in such cases the res judicata effect of the dismissing judgment also includes the grounds for the judgment, insofar as the other – i.e. the currently not missing – claim requirements have been positively established or affirmed.