TMT Newsletter | February 2026

Outlook

On 24.02.2026, the Federal Court of Justice will decide whether a foreign state (Kingdom of Morocco) can rely on claims that are based on reputation and “state dignity” against German media companies (VI ZR 415/23, VI ZR 416/23). On 25.02.2026, the Federal Administrative Court will hear a case on whether a private health insurance company may process billing and health data for targeted advertising of health programs without consent (6 C 7.24). On 26.02.2026, the CJEU will rule on whether the Hungarian Media Council affected the media freedom and pluralism by not renewing frequency usage rights of the radio station “Klubrádio” (C-92/23). On the same day, the AGs are publishing four opinions: First, AG Szpunar will publish the opinion on whether and under what conditions collecting societies may provide financial support to individuals without a remuneration claim or a rights management agreement (C-840/24). Second, AG Szpunar will publish the opinion on whether providing streaming services (live, on demand or offline use) qualifies as the supply of “digital content” within the meaning of Art. 16(m); Art. 2(11) Directive 2011/83/EU (C-234/25). Third, AG Ćapeta will publish the opinion on whether offering a television in an online lottery leads to the qualification as a “dealer” and thus an obligation to provide information on energy efficiency classes (Art. 2(13), Art. 6(1)(a) Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 in conjunction with Art. 4(d) Delegated Regulation 2019/2013) (C-120/25). Fourth, AG Rantos will publish the opinion on Meta’s appeals against two judgments by the EGC (T-451/20 and T-452/20), which concern a document request by the EUCOM (C-496/23 P and C-497/23 P). On 04.03.2026, the Federal Administrative Court will hear, in the first and final instance, a lawsuit brought by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection against the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) seeking access to intelligence activities, in particular extraterritorial IT operations (6 A 2.24). On 05.03.2026, the EGC will hear Meta’s action against a decision by the EDPB arguing that Art. 66(2) GDPR is unlawful and that the EDPB exceeded its powers under Art. 66 GDPR (T-8/24). On 10.03.2026, the CJEU will hear whether the training of an LLM-based chatbot constitutes a reproduction of lawfully accessible works and, if so, whether this falls under the TDM exception (Art. 4 Directive 2019/790/EU (DSM Directive)) (C-250/25).

CJEU – Action brought by WhatsApp against EDPB decision is admissible

WhatsApp may contest an EDPB decision before the EGC without being its formal addressee. EDPB decisions have binding effects for their addressees (here: supervisory authorities) and constitute legal assessments. The court must now examine whether the imposed fine of EUR 225 million is lawful (C-97/23 P).

CJEU – Delivery fee for online book retailer can restrict free movement of goods

A national provision setting out a delivery fee for books falls within the exception under Art. 1(4) Directive 2006/123/EC (Directive on services in the internal market) and Art. 1(6) Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive). As it affects the book price rather than contracts between book retailers and delivery services, it must be assessed solely in light of the free movement of goods (Art. 34 TFEU) (not: the freedom to provide services, Art. 56 TFEU). The provision can restrict the free movement of goods as a “measure having equivalent effect” (C-366/24).

EUCOM – Draft Digital Networks Act

The regulation concerns digital connectivity in the EU and combines the existing legal framework (including the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC)). The 'single passport' aims at allowing providers of electronic communications networks or services to operate across the EU once they have registered in one Member State (Art. 10 draft DNA). Rights of use for radio spectrum shall be granted for an unlimited duration (Art. 24 draft DNA). Parties may negotiate network interconnections freely (Art. 65 draft DNA), but authorities can impose obligations, for example, when a company holds significant market power (Art. 77 draft DNA) or to ensure end-to-end connectivity (Art. 68 draft DNA) (draft of 21.01.26).

EUCOM – Investigation against X over AI-based recommendation systems and deepfakes

EUCOM is investigating whether the platform has properly assessed (Art. 34 DSA) and mitigated (Art. 35 DSA) “systemic risks” resulting from the integration of an AI chatbot (“Grok”). The investigation focuses on the impact on physical and mental well-being, and on gender-specific violence. Additionally, EUCOM is extending the investigation launched in December 2023 to include AI-based recommendation systems (press release of 26.01.26).

EUCOM – TikTok’s design preliminary found to be “addictive”

According to the EUCOM, the platform’s design currently violates the DSA. This affects features such as endless scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, and personalized recommendations. TikTok is not taking adequate measures to mitigate the risks arising from this “addictive” design. The company may submit a defense. If the EUCOM confirms its preliminary findings, a fine of up to 6% of the company’s total turnover may be imposed (press release of 06.02.2026).

Federal Court of Justice – Minimum term for fiber optic contract begins upon conclusion of contract

A telecommunications company set out a minimum contract term of (twelve or) 24 months in its terms and conditions. The contract term was supposed to begin upon activation of the fiber optic connection, which had yet to be established. This clause is invalid under Section 309 No. 9 lit. a German Civil Code, as it results in a total contract term exceeding 24 months. Further, the clause contravenes the principles of Section 56(1) German TKG and is therefore also invalid under Section 307(1) German Civil Code (III ZR 8/25).

Federal Court of Justice – Information on health insurance payments and tariff changes does not qualify as personal data

“Personal data” must allow an identification of the data subject. A mere influence on the insurance modalities is not sufficient. However, “neutral” data may become personal data (Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR) when combined with additional information. The court referred the matter back to the Regional Court of Leipzig (I ZR 115/25).

Higher Regional Court of Munich – Secondary liability of social networks for fake accounts

Using names and images of third parties without consent to create fake profiles infringes both the right of personality and the right to one’s name and image. Social network operators are secondarily liable (Störerhaftung) once they become aware of such infringement. They are obliged to prevent the creation of the respective profile and identical or similar fake profiles in the future. The liability provision in Art. 6(1) DSA does not exclude this responsibility (18 U 2360/25 Pre e).

Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe – Social media platforms do not compete with journalists

Providers of social media platforms provide the technical infrastructure for publications. As they do not offer their own journalistic content, there is no “direct substitutionary competition” with journalists (Section 2(1) No. 4 German UWG). There is also no “indirect competition”, since the platform did not promote specific commercial user groups in this case. Therefore, journalists cannot take action against any potentially misleading content (Section 5 (1), (2) Alt. 1 German UWG) posted in user groups (6 W 50/25).

Higher Regional Court of Cologne – “License cost model” as the basis for author’s additional remuneration claim

The heir of a movie director (known for the “Winnetou” series) claimed additional remuneration from the German public broadcaster ARD for repeated TV broadcasts (Section 32a (1) sentence 1 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG)). The “obtained proceeds and benefits” are calculated using the so called “license cost model”. The benefit lies in the savings on program production. Broadcasting fees are not considered, as they are incurred regardless of whether a movie is broadcasted. The so called “repeat remuneration model” recognized by the Federal Court of Justice does not apply to a mere license purchase (not yet published, 6 U 90/24).

Higher Administrative Court of Schleswig-Holstein – Facebook must comply with transparency requirements for now

The Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein Media Authority found that Facebook violated Section 93(1) German MStV and ordered the provision of information on algorithms and ranking criteria. The court dismissed Meta’s appeal. The main proceedings will determine whether Section 93 (1) German MStV violates European law (particularly the E-Commerce Directive, the DSA and the P2B Regulation). A CJEU referral is possible; the Administrative Court of Berlin has already submitted a referral in separate proceedings (6 MB 24/25).

Regional Court of Berlin II – Inadequate age verification requires parental consent under data protection law

The age verification process of a social media platform required users to enter their date of birth during registration. In the court’s view, this allowed underage users to circumvent the age threshold (16 years) in order to access the platform without restrictions. By relying solely on this self-declaration, the provider did not verify whether parental consent for the processing of personal data was required or had in fact been obtained (Art. 6(1)(a); Art. 8(1) GDPR) (15 O 271/23; not yet legally binding).

Federal Government – AI Act implementation law adopted

The “KI-Marktüberwachungs- und Innovationsförderungsgesetz” (KI-MIG) designates the German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) as the central coordination and competence center, the market surveillance authority, and the notifying authority. In fully harmonized areas, market surveillance authorities for product regulation will also enforce the AI Regulation (“one-stop shop”). The KI-MIG further governs administrative offense proceedings (press release of 11.02.26; government draft of 10.02.2026).

District Court of Munich – No copyright protection for AI output without creative human input

AI output (here: logos) can only be subject to copyright protection under the German Copyright Act (UrhG) where human input shapes the output in an objective and identifiable manner. The creative elements incorporated through prompting must shape the output so that it, as a whole, can be regarded as the author’s own original creation. It is insufficient to leave the creative decision to the AI – which is the case for generic and open instructions (142 C 9786/25, not yet legally binding).