The Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Regional Labour Court (LAG) clarified in its ruling of 28 January 2025 (Ref.: 5 SLa 159/24) that different remuneration for employees performing the same job does not automatically violate the principle of equal treatment under labour law or the equal pay requirement pursuant to Section 7 of the German Pay Transparency Act (EntgTranspG). In the case on which the judgement was based, a personnel manager sued for a significantly higher salary after colleagues who were subsequently hired received significantly higher remuneration. The court denied the plaintiff's claim to payment of the differential remuneration because better professional qualifications and longer, more relevant professional experience constitute objectively justified reasons that allow for unequal treatment.

The federal states are on the way to regulating the monitoring of compliance with the BFSG by a standardised market surveillance authority. The current status and consequences are documented here.

About the new EU guidelines for environmental advertising claims (green claims) and the associated legal requirements. The focus is on the EmpCo Directive, which introduces stricter rules for advertisers.

The EU Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Regulation, AI Regulation or AI Act) has been in force since 2 February 2025 and introduces the first binding obligations. A central regulation concerns the obligation of companies to train their employees* in the use of AI systems if AI systems are used (e.g. in the HR department, in customer service or in sales). The following article looks at what this means for companies and their employees in concrete terms and the consequences of a possible breach:

Trade secrets are an essential success factor for companies. However, not every blanket confidentiality clause in an employment contract stands up to legal scrutiny. A ruling by the Federal Labour Court (BAG, 17 October 2024, Ref. 8 AZR 172/23) shows where the limits lie and what consequences this has for employers.

In a recent judgement, the ECJ ruled on the application of general terms and conditions to training contracts with junior athletes.

In a judgement dated 14 March 2025 - 7 HK O 50/23, which was obtained by HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte, the Regional Court of Trier ruled that a cease-and-desist declaration obtained by the IDO Interessenverband für das Rechts- und Finanzconsulting deutscher Online-Unternehmen e.V. (IDO) could be effectively terminated due to abuse of rights. Exceptionally, this cancellation also had retroactive effect on a contractual penalty that had already been claimed but not yet paid. The court found that the IDO may not demand contractual penalties because it lacks the authority to issue warnings as long as it is not entered in the list of trade associations of the Federal Office of Justice.

In its judgement of 30 January 2025 (case no. 2 AZR 68/24), the Federal Labour Court ruled that the proof of posting and the status of a notice of termination sent as a registered letter are not suitable for establishing prima facie evidence of receipt of a notice of termination.

When does a customer review become advertising that must be attributed to the provider of a product? German courts have been dealing with this question for quite some time. The Bochum Regional Court (judgement of 21 November 2024 - 14 O 65/24) now had to decide in the case of a coffee roasting company, thereby supplementing the prevailing case law.

With its decision today, the Federal Court of Justice has confirmed Apple's cross-market significance for competition. The group, which is the most valuable company in the world with a market value of over 3 trillion US dollars, is now subject to increased supervision by the Federal Cartel Office.

This article provides an overview of the transparency obligations contained in the AI Act. For the most part, these are vaguely formulated and leave a lot of room for interpretation with regard to their concrete interpretation and implementation. More clarity is only likely to be provided by the guidelines to be drawn up by the Commission and the practical guidelines to be prepared by the Office for Artificial Intelligence.

In the legal dispute Thomson Reuters v. Ross, a US court decides for the first time whether feeding an AI with copyrighted content is permitted under the Fair Use Doctrine. The District Court of Delaware says no, but not categorically, but rather on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, Ross is felled by the fact that it wanted to place its own competing product on the market with the help of information from a well-known US case law database. The decision is therefore not suitable as a "top or bottom" template for future cases. However, it opens up exciting perspectives and provides a breath of fresh air in the debate on AI and copyright.