IP-transactions

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 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.

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:

At the 45th RDV Forum, Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Dr Hubertus von Roenne will discuss how the AI Regulation and the Data Act are changing the role of data protection officers. The forum marks the start of the 50th DAFTA in 2026.

In episode 187 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Jan Hemann speak to lawyer Peter Schantz about the planned reform of intelligence service legislation and, in particular, the future powers of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND). The focus is on the question of how far the BND’s powers should extend in future. Among other things, the discussion covers the planned changes to strategic telecommunications surveillance, the use of so-called ‘state Trojans’, and the BND’s potential powers within Germany and in relation to German nationals. The discussion also covers the oversight of the intelligence services, the legal remedies available to those affected, and the role of the Independent Supervisory Board and the Federal Data Protection Commissioner. Peter Schantz has critically examined the reform plans on behalf of the Society for Civil Liberties and served as a department head at the Federal Ministry of Justice until the end of 2024.

At the BvD Autumn Conference 2026, Dr Martin Schirmbacher will speak about the data access rights set out in the Data Act, potential conflicts with the GDPR, and the implications for data protection consultancy.

In episode 186 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss data protection, legal positivism and a recent ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court. First, they discuss whether data protection regulations prevented the publication of police photos following an attack. Härting and Brink analyse the allegations from a legal perspective. They then turn their attention to an article by legal historian Peter Oestmann on legal positivism and the question of how political protests and blockades should be assessed from a legal perspective. Finally, the discussion turns to the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling of 2 July 2026 on the criminal law ban on so-called child sex dolls. Härting and Brink discuss, in particular, the legislature’s discretion and the dissenting opinion of one of the constitutional judges.