Competition & Advertising

Regulation 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising (TTPW) has been in force since 10 October 2025. Through the TTPW, the European legislator aims to prevent the improper 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 involves 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.

In episode 48 of the Data Navigator podcast, Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Dr Hubertus von Roenne speak to Martin Wietkamp, Senior Counsel at Bayer, about the Data Act in the context of digital farming and the question of how a corporation manages its various roles as a producer, user and customer of data processing services.

The new EU action plan sets out how Europe intends to address the opportunities and risks posed by artificial intelligence in the field of cybersecurity.

The planned reform of intelligence service legislation has raised serious concerns within the German Bar Association (DAV). Substantial amendments are required during the legislative process to address the significant constitutional concerns. This is evident from the DAV’s statement of 2 September 2026, to which Niko Härting contributed.

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 exemptions 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 189 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss the rising number of cases before the social courts, state surveillance powers and current calls for the regulation of the digital sphere. First, the two take a look at the significant rise in the number of cases filed with the Bavarian social courts. They then turn to the security debate and the question of how police surveillance powers should be assessed overall. One of the catalysts for this discussion is a pilot study on what is known as a ‘comprehensive surveillance assessment’. In the final section, Härting and Brink discuss nine proposals for better management of the digital space. Among other things, they address the power of large US technology companies in the field of artificial intelligence, as well as the question of whether platform users should be required to identify themselves in future.

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.

The EU is significantly expanding the information requirements regarding warranty rights and guarantees in the retail sector. From 27 September 2026, online and high-street retailers must use standardised model notices (‘harmonised notice’ and – under strict conditions – a guarantee label).