Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Germany legalizes ad blocker

5 posts in this topic

The case "Axel Springer GmbH vs Eyeo GmbH (the company behind AdBlock Plus)" ended by the decision of Federal Court today.

 

The BGH decided that AdBlock Plus does not violate the competition rules via its "acceptable ads" business model. The court argues that the ad blocking company does not have any intention to give selective publishers competitive preference. In addition the court argues that the company does not in any way force anyone to install the ad blocker (for example, by being installed by default in browser installation package). Any Internet user makes a conscious decision to install it.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In more detail: the blacklist function that blocked the ads was deemed legal. However, the whitelist function - under which companies could pay their way onto a list of "unobtrusive" ads that would be displayed (if users consented) despite AdBlock, which they described as extortion-like. I'll grant them that.

 

The important thing is that this cuts off a revenue stream for the company. Expect them to start begging for donations soon and, if people don't give, they may start charging for installations/filter subscription updates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??

El Jeffo, did you read the post and the linked verdict? The whitelist function is legal, this is the whole point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I hadn't - I was going by the report on Spiegel.de (my bold):

 

Quote

Vor dem Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Köln hatte Axel Springer noch einen Teilerfolg erzielt. Das OLG hatte keine Einwände gegen das sogenannte Blacklisting, mit dem Werbung blockiert wird, befand aber das sogenannte Whitelisting für rechtswidrig. Beim Whitelisting müssen Unternehmen dafür zahlen, dass Werbung durchgelassen wird, die den Eyeo-Richtlinien für akzeptable Werbung entspricht.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was in OLG Köln. Todays hearing is with the Bundesgerichsthof. This court wrote:
 

Quote

 

Das Angebot des Werbeblockers stellt keine gezielte Behinderung im Sinne des § 4 Nr. 4 UWG dar. Eine Verdrängungsabsicht liegt nicht vor. Die Beklagte verfolgt in erster Linie die Beförderung ihres eigenen Wettbewerbs. Sie erzielt Einnahmen, indem sie gegen Entgelt die Möglichkeit der Freischaltung von Werbung durch die Aufnahme in die Whitelist eröffnet. Das Geschäftsmodell der Beklagten setzt demnach die Funktionsfähigkeit der Internetseiten der Klägerin voraus.

...

Die mittelbare Beeinträchtigung des Angebots der Klägerin ist nicht unlauter. Das Programm unterläuft keine gegen Werbeblocker gerichteten Schutzvorkehrungen des Internetangebots der Klägerin. Auch die Abwägung der Interessen der Betroffenen führt nicht zu dem Ergebnis, dass eine unlautere Behinderung der Klägerin vorliegt.

 

 

Basically it says:

1. The blocker is installed consciously by the user, it does in no way force installation.

2. The blocker does not prefer one publisher over another: you pay money, your ads are shown, bbut they should satisfy the criteria. Intrusive ads are not allowed even for money.

3. Small businesses do not pay, the court does not protest this.

4. The blocker does not do anything against Bild ad blocker ban. Thus, referring to some freedom and blocking the users with adblock at the same time is not compartible.

 

That's why it is legal.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0