TMT Newsletter | May 2026

 

Outlook

03.06.2026

CJEU: On whether Estonian provisions are compatible with Directive (EU) 2016/680 and the GDPR that, inter alia, allow data processing by an authority that is not a criminal investigation body and restrict the right of access of data subjects until the complete destruction of the data (decision C-222/25)?

EGC: On the designation of the operator of a social network as a gatekeeper under Art. 3 DMA – in particular the classification of platform services as a gateway for business users within the meaning of Art. 3(1)(b) DMA (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925) (decision T-1078/23).

09.06.2026 

German Federal Constitutional Court: Constitutional complaints by cable network operators alleging, inter alia, a violation of Art. 14(1), Art. 12(1) German GG and the protection of legitimate expectations through the special termination right under § 230(5) TKG (hearing 1 BvR 1803, 1 BvR 2058/22, 1 BvR 2234/22).

16.06.2026

CJEU: Under what conditions do national criminal law and child-protection provisions concerning online services fall within the coordinated field of Directive 2000/31/EC (the E-Commerce Directive) (decision C-188/24)?

18.06.2026

German Federal Court of Justice: On the obligation of credit report agencies to provide information regarding the procedure for calculating credit scores under Art. 15(1)(h) in conjunction with Art. 22 GDPR (hearing I ZR 226/25 - I ZR 230/25).

25.06.2026

German Federal Administrative Court: On the obligation of a network operator to grant access to empty conduits of a subsidized telecommunications network pursuant to § 155 TKG (hearing 6 C 3.25). 

02.07.2026

German Federal Court of Justice: On the copyright protectability of a modular furniture system (following a preliminary ruling by the CJEU in case C-580/23 and C-795/23; decision I ZR 96/22).

News

CJEU – No communication to the public via internal cable network in retirement homes

According to CJEU case law, a "communication to the public" (Art. 3 of InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC) requires communication via "specific technical means" or to a "new public". The CJEU holds that neither criterion is met: Where broadcast programs received via a satellite antenna are retransmitted simultaneously, unaltered and in their entirety via an internal cable system, this does not constitute a retransmission “independent of the original communication”. Residents of a retirement home also do not constitute a “new public”. Their residency is permanent, and they receive the broadcasts privately. They are part of the audience that the rights holder intended to address when authorizing the broadcast. To hold otherwise would afford authors undue remuneration, whereas the InfoSoc Directive only provides for appropriate remuneration (C-127/24).

CJEU – Italian implementation of press publishers’ right compatible with EU law

In implementing the press publishers’ right (Art. 15 of the DSM Directive (2019/790)), Italy established both a remuneration claim for publishers against service providers and negotiation and disclosure obligations for service providers. The supervisory authority (AGCOM) may impose fines in cases of non-compliance with these obligations. This implementation is compatible with EU law only subject to certain conditions. These include that publishers must be able to refuse a license or to grant a license at no cost, that service providers must pay remuneration only for an actual use of press publications, and that any obligations and sanctions are proportionate. It is now for the Italian court to verify whether these conditions are met. It remains open what constitutes a "use" and who decides this question (C-797/23). 

CJEU – On the temporal scope of the EMFA

A Hungarian court referred to the CJEU the question of whether national rules on the burden of proof violate Art. 3 EMFA and Art. 11 CFR. Hungarian courts required domestic media to prove the veracity of media content adopted from non-Hungarian media. The EMFA is not applicable in temporal terms: the publication of the article at issue had already taken place before Art. 3 EMFA became applicable. In the absence of a connection to Union law, Art. 11 CFR does not apply (Art. 51(1) CFR) (C-843/24).

CJEU-AG – Formal requirements for cross-border copyright licenses are governed by Art. 11 Rome I Regulation

Where national requirements for license agreements diverge (here: written form requirement under Polish law), AG Emiliou holds that Art. 11 Rome I Regulation applies. Under that provision, an agreement is valid in form if it complies with the requirements of the law governing the contract or the law of the place of conclusion. In the case of distance contracts, it is sufficient to comply with the law of the place where either party is present or has habitual residence. According to the AG, formal validity is a matter of contract law (not of property law). Moreover, it is unrelated to non-contractual liability (Art. 8 Rome II Regulation) (Opinion C-176/25).

CJEU-AG – Parallel system of dispute settlement and court proceedings for access to network infrastructure in principle compatible with EU law

Slovenian law provides for a parallel system between the national dispute settlement body and the courts in proceedings involving network operators seeking access to physical infrastructure. According to AG Szpunar, this is compatible with Art. 3(4) and (5), subpara. 2 Directive 2014/61/EU (Cost Reduction Directive). However, a provision that automatically discontinues the dispute settlement proceedings where one of the parties initiates proceedings before the courts is incompatible with EU law. Such provision makes it “excessively difficult” for network providers to exercise their right to access physical infrastructure (principle of effectiveness; Opinion C-164/25).

CJEU-AG – Infringers of intellectual property rights required to provide evidence

According to AG Norkus, Art. 8(1) and (2) Directive 2004/48/EC (Enforcement Directive) does not only grant right holders the right to information. The national court may also require the infringer to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information by submitting documents (Opinion C-276/25).

German Federal Court of Justice – Termination of a contract with a streaming provider must not depend on remaining credit balance

The contract between a user and a streaming provider is a service agreement, not a lease agreement. Therefore, a clause in the terms and conditions stating that termination only becomes effective once a credit balance (e.g., from gift cards) has been fully used is invalid under Section 307(1), sentence 1 German BGB. Such a clause may result in the termination taking months to become effective, contrary to Sections 620(2) and 621 no. 3 German BGB (III ZR 152/25).

German Federal Government – Draft bill on IP address retention to investigate online crimes adopted

The draft requires internet service providers to retain, i.a., the IP addresses and port numbers of subscribers for three months (Sec. 177 TKG draft). No further data is covered (Sec. 177(1) sentence 3 TKG draft): However, law enforcement authorities may request telecommunications service providers (including internet access service providers) to preserve traffic data (Sec. 100g(7) StPO draft) (government draft from 22.4.26). 

Administrative Court of Düsseldorf – Access providers are not required to block pornographic websites

A German state media authority (Landesanstalt für Medien NRW) had based its blocking order on provisions of the State Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media (Jugendmedienschutzstaatsvertrag). Art. 28 DSA constitutes a fully harmonized regulation for youth protection on online platforms; the national provisions are inapplicable and violate the country-of-origin principle under EU law (Art. 3 E-Commerce Directive). The authority must reconsider whether to revoke the formal order (Verwaltungsakt) against the provider of pornographic content itself due to an error in exercising discretion (Ermessensfehler) (not yet published, 27 K 3964/22, 27 K 733/23, not legally binding; press release of 20.4.26). 

Higher Regional Court of Berlin – Class action against operator of a social network for alleged data protection violations inadmissible

A Dutch foundation filed an action (Abhilfeklage) seeking compensation for users – based on the operator's ongoing data processing practices and a data protection incident (so-called "API-bug"). The action is inadmissible because the claims are not essentially of the same nature within the meaning of Section 15(1) VDuG. The extent of the loss of control over data depends on the individual circumstances of each user. In particular, the duration and intensity of the loss of control, any prior loss of control, the type and quality of the data concerned, and any actual misuse of data must be determined (20 VKI 1/25, not legally binding).