Competition & Advertising

This episode features Prof. Frauke Rostalski, Professor of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Philosophy of Law and Comparative Law at the University of Cologne, and a member of the German Ethics Council. First (03:02), the discussion turns to the draft bill on strengthening civil and criminal law protection against digital violence. What gaps in criminal liability does the draft bill close? Subsequently (10:24), reference is made to areas where freedom of expression is coming under increasing pressure. Rostalski describes her observation of a “vulnerability of discourse” and, from minute 15:54, reports on the climate of discourse at universities. The discussion then (17:48) turns to criminal law as a means of defence for a resilient democracy, for example through the withdrawal of the right to stand for election in cases of incitement to hatred. In this context, the discussion also turns (from 22:10) to the report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifying the AfD as “confirmed right-wing extremist”. The podcast concludes with a positive outlook on the discourse on freedom of expression.

First, Dr Stefan Brink and Prof Niko Härting (00:33) discuss the new data deletion policies for the Siri chat function (Apple) and the WhatsApp messaging service (Meta). From minute 09:59, the decision of the Lüneburg Administrative Court of 29 April 2026, ref. 1 A 85/24, is discussed. The town of Buchholz had published a call for a demonstration against right-wing extremism. The AfD was also mentioned in this context. The local branch of this party unsuccessfully challenged this. Last but not least (20:25), Niko and Stefan discuss the recently published activity report by the Federal Data Protection Commissioner. From minute 29:10 onwards, they highlight in particular the sections on surveillance by the intelligence services. Does the BND have a flawless data deletion routine?

Episode 44 of the Data Navigator podcast focuses on FRAND in the Data Act – specifically, the conditions under which data owners must disclose IoT data to third parties and what they are permitted to charge for this. Martin Schirmbacher and Hubertus von Rönne explain the details of the new legal framework. The starting point is the familiar triangle: a user (e.g. a wind farm operator) instructs the manufacturer (e.g. Vestas) to send operational data directly to a third party (e.g. the start-up Turbit). To this end, a contract must be concluded between the manufacturer and the third party (see Art. 8 Data Act), and remuneration is governed by Art. 9 DA, all on FRAND terms. The user, however, may request the data free of charge. Martin and Hubertus go through in detail which costs the manufacturer is permitted to charge (provision costs, onboarding, margin where applicable, and investment costs – though the latter, for example, not vis-à-vis SMEs), which billing models the Commission’s draft guidelines provide for, and what ‘non-discriminatory’ means in practice. Key principle: The value of the data itself must not be priced. The conclusion: Remuneration issues will develop differently depending on the sector. At present, progress is often still stalling on fundamental issues: What data is actually being shared, and how should it be categorised? The call remains: producers, users and data recipients must come together within their respective sectors and also discuss the terms of data provision.

On 26 March 2026, the Bundestag passed the Act Implementing the Data Regulation (DADG), which was published in the Federal Law Gazette on 29 May. Germany has thus – albeit with a significant delay – established the national legal framework required of Member States under the EU Data Act. Below, we provide an overview of the background, content and penalty provisions of the new Act.

AI has long been used in many areas within organisations: in HR, marketing, software development, customer service, legal, procurement and management. Whilst this often promises significant efficiency gains or better results, it is not uncommon for it to be accompanied by shadow AI, unclear tool approvals, data protection risks, copyright issues and uncertainty amongst staff. At the same time, legal regulation is becoming more concrete. The AI Regulation not only requires an assessment of legal risks but also mandates, depending on the risk class, documented decisions, robust processes, clear roles and AI expertise within the organisation.

Access controls via facial scanning, age verification in e-commerce, voice recognition in customer service, or emotion analysis in video calls – there are many practical applications for biometric systems in business. Artificial intelligence (AI) makes many of these systems better, faster and more effective. But the use of AI in conjunction with biometric data is not only drawing the attention of data protection authorities – against the backdrop of the AI Regulation (AI-VO), many companies are faced with the question: Which biometric applications are prohibited under the AI-VO, which are considered high-risk, and when do ‘mere’ transparency obligations apply?

First (00:38), Dr Stefan Brink and Prof. Niko Härting discuss the coalition agreement of Baden-Württemberg’s new state government, which provides for staff cuts of up to 40 per cent at the State Data Protection Commissioner’s office. One of the reasons given for this is a planned centralisation within the Federal Data Protection Commissioner’s office. Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Subsequently (11:02), Härting and Brink discuss a ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court dated 6 May 2026, ref. VG 42 K 73/25, which confirmed the legality of ID checks and video surveillance at Berlin’s summer swimming pools. Finally (21:21), the topic is freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed a lawsuit brought by the betting provider Tipico against Der Spiegel. Tipico sought to challenge the statement: “Four men from Karlsruhe founded and built up the company; they pushed the boundaries of what is legally permissible and went beyond them.” Brink finds the decision unsettling, whereas Härting considers it well-founded.

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 episode 43 of the Data Navigator podcast, Dr Martin Schirmbacher, partner and specialist solicitor in IT law at HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte, and Dr Hubertus von Roenne, partner at the strategy consultancy Upgrade, speak with Dr Matthias Nachtmann about the use of data in agriculture. Matthias Nachtmann is the founder and chairman of Friends of Digital Farming, an association promoting the digitalisation of agriculture and food. In the discussion, he explains how data usage currently works in agriculture and what conditions are needed for a functioning data economy in the agri-food sector. Among other things, the discussion addresses why farmers today are often faced with differing data requests from various customers, the role of common rules for data exchange, and why data only scales when it delivers concrete productivity benefits to farms. Other topics covered in the episode include process data and location data in the field, the example of nitrogen with varying requirements across different federal states, and the question of who should define the ‘traffic rules’ for a functioning data economy. Federalism and its impact on innovation in the agricultural sector are also discussed. Further information on digital farming Consultancy and strategy on digital farming by Dr Matthias Nachtmann Friends of Digital Farming Fraunhofer IESE: Digital Farming / Smart Farming Chair of Digital Farming at RPTU GeoBox Rhineland-Palatinate Further podcast episodes on data in the agricultural sector Episode 38: The Data Act from a machinery manufacturer’s perspective with Georg Larscheid from Claas Episode 34: The Data Act from a farmer’s perspective with farmer Dag Frerichs Episode 24: What does the Data Act mean for the agricultural sector? with Prof. Dr Reinhard Grandke All previous episodes of the Data Navigator podcast on the Data Act Data Navigator Newsletter Using data: New every two weeks. Subscribe to the Data Navigator Newsletter now. General information on the Data Act The Data Act as adopted by the Council of the European Union on 27 November 2023 FAQ on the Data Act: “You ask, we answer: How the Data Act affects your business!”