Competition Law

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.

Episode 56 of the sports law podcast ‘Liebling Bosman’ explores the different competition models of the Bundesliga and the North American basketball league, the NBA. Together with Prof. Dr Lars Dittrich, the hosts discuss his book *A Comparison of Sporting Competition in the Bundesliga and the NBA*. The focus is on how sporting parity – known as ‘competitive balance’ – can be ensured within the two league systems. Whilst the NBA operates as a closed franchise system featuring, amongst other things, a salary cap, a draft and play-offs, the Bundesliga is embedded within the European club and league system with promotion and relegation. The discussion centres on how the dominance of financially powerful clubs, transfers, player loans and buy-back clauses influence the level playing field. The discussion also addresses the question of whether mechanisms from US sport – such as the draft – could even be meaningfully and legally applied to European football. Podcast link:

Episode 55 of the sports law podcast “Liebling Bosman” focuses on ticket allocation for the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the employment law implications of taking on a secondary role in the Baller League. Fabian Reinholz, Robert Golz and Dr Holger Jakob discuss the complaint lodged by Football Supporters Europe and Euroconsumers against FIFA regarding the allocation and pricing of World Cup tickets. In an interview, FSE Director Stuart Dykes explains the background to the issue and the potential rights of football fans. The hosts also examine a court ruling on the conditions under which a head coach’s role in the Baller League could justify dismissal.

In its judgment of 12 May 2026 – 4 UKl 3/25, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm ruled that the responses provided by a chatbot are to be attributed to its user as the user’s own conduct. If such responses breach competition law provisions, this therefore constitutes a separate breach of competition law by the user.

Article 50 of the AI Regulation stipulates that, from August 2026, certain AI-related content must be labelled (find out more here). There is considerable uncertainty as to what constitutes a ‘deepfake’ that is subject to this labelling requirement.

In this episode, Brink and Härting discuss the Federal Ministry of Justice’s draft bill on strengthening civil and criminal law protection against digital violence. First, from minute 00:39, Dr Brink and Prof Härting explain what the legislature means by ‘digital violence’ and, from minute 02:52, begin by critically examining the criminal law section of the draft. To what extent is the draft compatible with the principle of the ‘ultima ratio’ in criminal law? Subsequently, from minute 16:11, Brink and Härting examine the question of whether the draft’s civil law proposals are compatible with the DSA (Digital Services Act). From minute 20:47, the focus is particularly on the judicial blocking of user accounts provided for in the draft. Finally, from minute 26:30, they discuss the draft’s provisions on claims for information against service providers and the associated orders to preserve evidence. Whilst these are compatible with the DSA, they should be rejected in the context of the introduced data retention measures. Is the draft to be endorsed from a civil rights perspective?

Advertising, brands, AI, public viewing: what is allowed? The 2026 FIFA World Cup offers companies plenty of opportunities for creative marketing campaigns, competitions, social media campaigns and public viewing events. At the same time, the legal boundaries are narrow: FIFA’s trademark rights, players’ personal rights, ambush marketing, AI-generated advertising and licensing issues relating to public viewing should be considered at an early stage. Our handout provides a concise overview of what is permitted in advertising in the context of the 2026 World Cup and where legal risks lie.

An electrical appliance retailer commissions Google to independently promote its products. In its judgment of 11 March 2026 – I ZR 28/25, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had to decide whether the electrical appliance manufacturer was liable for Google’s failure to correctly label energy efficiency classes, and ruled in the affirmative. In doing so, the court clearly highlighted the differences from its ‘Liability for Affiliates’ decision.