TMT Newsletter | July 2025

Outlook

On 31.07.25, the Federal Court of Justice will rule on whether modifying computer programs through the use of ad blockers (I ZR 131/23)  or - following a CJEU referral (C-159/23) - "cheat software" (I ZR 157/21) constitutes an infringement under Sec. 69c No. 2 UrhG. On 02.08.25, the provisions of the AI Act on general-purpose AI models (Art. 51-55 Regulation 2024/1689) come into force. On 05.08.25, the Regional Court of Munich I will decide whether the Mio Mio Cola+Orange beverage bottle design infringes a registered colour mark (Sec. 3 para. 1 MarkenG) due to its similarity to the Spezi bottles (Az. 33 O 14496/24). The CJEU will not hold hearings from 16.07.25 to 31.08.25 due to the court recess.

CJEU – Obligation to respect value of human dignity also apply online-only publications

Publishers of online newspapers are media service providers under the AVMSD, provided that their audiovisual content is independent from their press articles. A national provision exempting such online-only services from the obligation to respect the value of human dignity violates Art. 6 AVMSD. Such provision can also not be interpreted in conformity with EU law to cover such services, at least when it includes punitive sanctions. A broader interpretation would violate Art. 49 CFR (C-555/23 and C-556/23).

CJEU – Equitable remuneration for producers of phonograms does not require minimum remuneration

The decisive factor under Art. 8 para. 2 Directive 2006/115 and Art. 16 para. 2, subpara. 2 Directive 2014/26 is whether the remuneration is equitable in light of the "economic value of the use" and whether it strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of phonogram producers in receiving remuneration and the interests of third parties in broadcasting phonograms (C-37/24).

ECJ Advocate General – Member States have broad discretion in implementing press performance protection rights

According to Advocate General Szpunar, Member States have broad discretion in implementing press performance protection rights under copyright contract law pursuant to Article 15 Directive 2019/790. This may include a right to fair remuneration, negotiation obligations and regulatory powers, provided that this does not affect the right of press publishers not to grant licences or not to grant them in return for remuneration, and the right of service providers to pay only if they actually use rights. However, the reasoning that the rights granted to press publishers ‘do not have the general character of copyright or related rights’ is surprising. In this respect, the strongly politically motivated conclusions are not compatible with either the wording or the history of the press performance protection right (C-797/23).

CJEU-AG – Member States' wide discretion when transposing press publisher right

According to AG Szpunar, Member States have discretion re copyright contract rules when transposing the ancillary copyright for press publishers under Art. 15 Directive 2019/790. This can include a right to equitable compensation, negotiation obligations, and regulatory control powers, if press publishers retain the rights not to license their content or license it without remuneration, and service providers only owe an equitable compensation where they actually use rights. However, the AG's reasoning, according to which the press publisher rights "do not have the general character of copyright or other related rights" is at odds with the wording and the legislative history of the press publisher right and appears entirely politically motivated (opinion C-797/23).

CJEU-AG – Critical editions of public domain work may qualify as works

A critical edition is a version of a published text that has been carefully edited and annotated using scholarly methods. This often includes reconstructing its history of origin, correcting textual errors, and adding supplementary materials. According to AG Spielmann, such edition may qualify as an independent work under Art. 2 lit. a Directive 2001/29/EC, provided that it reflects the editor’s own free and creative choices and presents a sufficiently identifiable subject matter (opinion C-649/23).

EUCOM – Simplified data access for researchers

The COM's delegated act regulates the details of data access in accordance with Art. 40 DSA: Data exchange between researchers and VLOPs/VLOSEs takes place via a data access portal (Art. 3). Access is granted only to qualified researchers who must provide information such as their research organization and a detailed description of the requested data (Art. 8). After passing the verification process, researchers can request data to analyze systemic risks, e.g. content recommendations and engagement data (Recital 13) (press release of 02.07.25).

EUCOM – Increased protection of minors on online Platforms

The COM's guidelines contain recommendations for measures for online platforms to protect minors, Art. 28 para. 1 DSA. For instance, they recommend accounts belonging to minors having the highest privacy settings to prevent screenshots of their content and restrict visibility to contacts only. The guidelines also explain when and how platforms should verify users' ages, including a prototype of an age verification app (press release of 14.07.25).

BTag / BRat – TKG amendment act: network expansion prioritized until 2030

The draft law aims at improving telecommunications network expansion. The central element is recognizing the 'overriding public interest' in expanding fibre optic and mobile networks, outweighing nature conservation and monument protection interests, to expedite the approval process.  This is partly due to the EU's “Digital Decade Policy Program 2030” initiative. On 11.07.25, the Federal Council approved the draft law (press release of 26.06.25; BRat resolution of 11.07.25)

Federal Administrative Court – COMPACT-ban overturned

Although the Association Statute applies to the Compact GmbH, the ban on associations is not an impermissible censorship and the procedure pursuant to Art. 18 GG has no priority. The federal government also has the legislative power to access the law on associations (Art. 74 para. 1 No. 1 GG) because the potential danger posed by the collective, not its purpose, is decisive. However, the ban is disproportionate: the activities directed against the constitutional order are not characteristic of the association in question (press release of 24.06.25).

Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main – Claim for complete account deletion against Facebook

In exceptional cases, a balancing of interests may lead to a claim against a service provider (as an indirect interferer) for completely deleting a social media user-account. The case concerned an account that, according to the court, was used exclusively for the dissemination of defamatory statements. Deleting the account is more effective for preventing similar infringements than deleting individual statements (press release of 27.06.25, not final ).

Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main – mandatory provision of email and telephone number violates GDPR

Until recently, customers had to provide an email address or phone number to buy a saver train ticket. It wasn't possible to purchase one at the ticket counter. This data processing is unlawful because consent was not given freely, as required by Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a, Art. 4 para. 11 GDPR. This is due to a violation of the prohibition of tying under Art. 7 para. 4 GDPR. Additionally, there is no other reason for permission under Art. 6 para. 1 GDPR (press release of 11.07.25).

Administrative Court of Berlin – CJEU-referral re transparency obligations under media law in main proceedings

The court has stayed the proceedings between Spotify and the Media Authority Berlin-Brandenburg and referred questions to the CJEU on whether the transparency obligations for media intermediaries under the Interstate Media Treaty are compatible with the country of origin under the E-Commerce-Directive and the DSA (PM v. 22.07.25).

Administrative Court Schleswig-Holstein – No decision or CJEU-referral on media law transparency obligations in interim proceedings

This "complex legal question" whether Sections 93 and Section 1 para. 8 MStV violate EU law cannot be conclusively answered. The Administrative Court considers the appeal's prospects of success against the MA HSH's order open and denies the social media provider's request for interim relief based on a balancing of interests (press release of 02.02.25, not final).