In dispute over advertising blockers on internet, media company Axel Springer failed before Federal Supreme Court (BGH). The I. Senate does not see offer of ad blocker Adblock Plusdes provider Eyeo not unfair competition and also no rechtswidrigeaggressive business practice. The decision to use Werbeblockersliege ultimately at user and not at defendant company, said DerVorsitzende Richter at DerUrteilsverkündung.

Shortly after sentencing, Springer announced a constitutional complaint. It is an intervention in core of liberal media order, Springer explained. The freedom of press will be violated.

The Senate spoke of a balancing of individual interests. "In doing so, has adopted resolutions played a decisive role in fact that plaintiff is able to defend Sichgegen ad blockers," said presiding judge. Thus, users of an ad blocker can block access to his offers. Vieledeutsche and international media offers now use se "adblocker blocks".

Springer had argued that his business model was compromised by Unterdrückenvon advertising on his internet pages. Only a few journalistischeAngebote on internet could take money over payment barriers, advertising seidaher existentially. The legal representative of Springer-Verlag, Cornelis Lehment, estimated loss of sales with advertising because of Adblock Plus at our online-newspapers bild.de and welt.de with about 20 percent a year. Adblock Plus is used by over 100 million users worldwide; In Germany, it is around 15 million, said Lehment in relation to earlier Eyeo.

A Eyeo lawyer, DerVerlag, despite proliferation of adblockers, is increasing his revenues in digital field in double-digit percentage range every year. The Firmaverwies is also on Google's initiatives that, since Kurzemebenfalls, has been delivering its Chrome browser with its own adblocker to filter intrusive advertising.

Axel Springer fails with revision

The legal Auseinandersetzungzwischen publishing houses and Eyeo is already taking place for several years. 2015scheiterte Axel Springer in front of Cologne District Court. A year later, DerVerlag was able to achieve at least a partial success before Upper regional Court. The court had zwarkeine objections to so-called blacklisting, with advertising blockiertwird. It was, however, so-called whitelisting for illegal. BeimWhitelisting must pay companies to be allowed to go through advertising that complies with EYEO guidelines for acceptable advertising.

Publishers such as Axel Springer argued that this business practice was a pity for trade and press freedom. Due to market position of Eyeo and Adblock Plus, media offers would dazugezwungen to pay for whitelisting. The Cologne court saw in fact a "aggressivegeschäftliche action" in business model and decided that company could not demand money for inclusion of Web pages of Axel Springer Publisher in SogenannteAcceptable-ads program. But publisher demanded Diekomplette activation and refore filed a revision before BGH.

But BGH now collected comply upper Oberlandesgericht practically completely. Springer got KeinenUnterlassungsanspruch, judged court. There is also no AllgemeineMarktbehinderung because re is no sufficient evidence to destroy business model of providing free content on Internet. And ultimately, re are no aggressive business Handlunggegenüber advertisers.

Or publishers also failed in past

In past, Nochandere publishers failed to ban AdBlocker. At upper court of Munich last year, in second instance complains of Süddeutsche Zeitung, RTL Interactivesowie ProSieben Sat. 1 Media against Eyeo failed. Before Hamburg court in March, EineKlage of time was online and Handelsblattsabgewiesen.

The lawyers of Axel Springer Kündigtennun to submit a constitutional complaint for intervention in fundamental right aufPressefreiheit.

Date Of Update: 20 April 2018, 12:03