Competition Law

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.

The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (decision of 4 December 2025 - 6 W 165/25) clarifies that the infringement of trademark rights for competitors does not generally give rise to injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Act, as the relevant standards do not constitute market conduct rules within the meaning of Section 3a UWG. However, it was pointed out that the criminal offence of receiving stolen goods is recognised as a market conduct rule, which, however, did not apply in the present case due to a lack of evidence.

Artificial intelligence (AI) that takes over purchasing in companies, autonomously monitors product stocks, researches prices and triggers orders. The proactive assistant that answers emails, manages calendars and checks in for flights. Or AI-to-AI or multi-agent systems that take over the entire checkout and where all processes on both the buyer's and seller's side run entirely within an AI interface - the use of AI agents or agentic AI promises completely new possibilities. Companies, and in particular retailers, that decide to participate in this new AI-based ecosystem must also be aware of the legal pitfalls: What are the legal rules of the game when AI suddenly negotiates and concludes contracts independently? Who is liable for what?

Specifically, the question was whether a consumer association authorised to bring an action can also take personal action against a GmbH managing director as part of a class action for consumer claims. The judgement creates new legal certainty for managing directors and clearly delineates the status of an entrepreneur within the meaning of the VDuG.

A vegan liqueur that "tastes like egg liqueur" may be advertised as an "egg-free liqueur" - as long as the consumer is made aware that it is not an "egg liqueur" as defined by the EU spirits categories. This was decided by the Regional Court of Kiel in a judgement dated 28 October 2025 (case no. 15 O 28/24).