Competition Law

Manchester City and the Premier League’s financial regulations take centre stage in episode 58 of the sports law podcast “Liebling Bosman”. The episode also covers the 2027 FIFA transfer rules, the legal classification of provocative comments made by fans, and the Regionalliga reform.

The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia has ruled that companies cannot themselves challenge the registration of qualified trade associations with the Federal Office of Justice in court. What does this mean for companies facing claims from organisations that issue warning letters?

Series of articles on Regulation 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (TTPW) Regulation 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (TTPW) has been in force. With the TTPW, the European legislator aims to prevent the dishonest influencing of political decisions. The rationale behind the TTPW is undoubtedly an important one: political advertising interferes with legislative processes and electoral decisions. Where this takes the form of disinformation, it can be highly problematic. However, the TTPW goes further and places political advertising as such under general suspicion. This regulatory flaw must always be borne in mind when applying the TTPW. The provisions of the TTPW are complex. This is likely one of the reasons why the Commission has published guidance on the implementation of the TTPW. Similar to other European regulatory regimes, the TTPW also provides for sanctions which apply in addition to other sanction regimes, in particular those of the GDPR. The national data protection supervisory authorities are responsible for enforcing the TTPW. Presumably due to its proximity to ‘political Berlin’, the Data Protection Conference has agreed that, in Germany, the Berlin supervisory authority will take the lead in dealing with the TTPW. The first proceedings are already underway, including those in which we are involved. In this series of articles, we will present selected legal issues relating to the TTPW and provide initial answers to the numerous legal questions arising from the application of the Regulation.

Anyone who pays for sustainable aviation fuel when booking a flight might assume that it will be used on their own flight. In reality, the fuel may not be used until months later on a different flight. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne requires airlines to provide information about this in good time.

Together with sports journalist Chaled Nahar, the hosts discuss power structures within FIFA, the Owen Ansah case and the antitrust assessment of the 50+1 rule.

The EU Regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising has been in force since October 2025. Part 1 of our series of articles explains what constitutes political advertising, who is considered a political actor, and what exceptions apply.

In episode 190 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss a domain dispute between law firms, gambling law, Meta’s smart glasses and a serious security breach in a prayer app. First up is a ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne dated 22 July 2026. A law firm had registered the German version of another firm’s domain name and redirected visitors to its own website. The Higher Regional Court deemed the registration and use of the third-party domain to be a breach of competition law. Härting and Brink then discuss a ruling by the Halle Administrative Court concerning the administrative practices of the Joint Gambling Authority of the German federal states. The conversation then turns once again to Meta’s smart glasses and a criminal complaint filed by HateAid against Meta and Ray-Ban. Finally, the pair discuss a security breach in the official prayer app ‘Click to Pray’, through which the personal data of around 720,000 registered users is said to have been accessible without authentication.

In episode 188 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss copyright in AI-generated music, the sharing of private WhatsApp messages and the use of Meta’s Smart Glasses. First, they discuss a ruling by the Munich I Regional Court against the US-based AI music generator Suno. The court largely upheld GEMA’s claims, focusing in particular on the question of what conclusions can be drawn from similarities between AI-generated content and protected training works. Härting and Brink then discuss a case in which private WhatsApp messages were shared with an employer. The focus is on whether the so-called ‘domestic exemption’ under the GDPR applies in this instance. Finally, the discussion turns to Meta’s Smart Glasses and the data protection issues that arise when photographing and filming other people in public spaces.