{"id":68098,"date":"2015-11-20T17:31:44","date_gmt":"2015-11-20T15:31:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=68098"},"modified":"2024-10-21T12:37:06","modified_gmt":"2024-10-21T10:37:06","slug":"stuttgart-regional-court-content-blocker-blockr-legal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/stuttgart-regional-court-content-blocker-blockr-legal\/","title":{"rendered":"Stuttgart Regional Court: Content blocker \u2018Blockr\u2019 legal"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-24693\" src=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Stoppschild.jpg\" alt=\"Stopschild mit blauem HG\" width=\"424\" height=\"283\" \/>Several German publishers (e.g. BILD, Zeit-Online, Handelsblatt, Pro7\/Sat1, RTL Interactive) already tried to convince German courts to outlaw AdBlock Plus\u00a0 &#8211; a software that allows users to block certain content while looking at websites. \u00a0So far\u00a0unsuccessfully.<\/p>\n<p>A few days ago, the WELT, which is part of the Springer family, tried to obtain a preliminary injunction against the developers of the content blocking software \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/blockr-app.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">blockr<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Without warning WELTN24 GmbH applied for injunctive relief at\u00a0the district court of Stuttgart (Landgericht Stuttgart) through the law firm Lubberger Lehment (Az. <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=11%20O%20238\/15\" title=\"11 O 238\/15 (2 zugeordnete Entscheidungen)\">11 O 238\/15<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>The court was asked to forbid the developers to offer, advertise, develop a software that surpresses ads on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.welt.de\">www.welt.de<\/a> including mobile versions of the website or to have these actions carried out by a third party. WELT argued that the software was illegally obstructing (<a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/UWG\/4.html\" title=\"&sect; 4 UWG: Mitbewerberschutz\">\u00a7 4 Nr. 10 UWG<\/a>) its digital content and therefore had to be banned.<\/p>\n<p>The court announced in a\u00a0hearing that took place on November 19th, 2015 that it did not see any legal grounds on which a preliminary injunction could be issued.<\/p>\n<p>LHR represents the legal interests of the developers of the content locker \u201cblockr\u201d Arno Appenzeller und Tim Pollert. &#8220;We are pleased that the court followed our arguments regarding the legality of the software&#8221;, said Lawyer Dr. Niklas Haberkamm, LL.M. oec. after the hearing.<\/p>\n<p>The judges specifically considered that it is the users\u00b4 independent decision to use content blocking software and that publishers like WELT can adequately react to users who block certain content. For example by banning users of content or ad blockers. A measure already <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2015\/oct\/13\/axel-springer-bans-adblock-users-from-bild-online\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">implemented by BILD<\/a> regarding its online content on www.bild.de.<\/p>\n<p>Thus we requested\u00a0 to reject the claims. The court will issue a decision on December 10th, 2015. (ha)<\/p>\n<p>(Bild: \u00a9 cevahir87 \u2013 Fotolia.com)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Several German publishers (e.g. BILD, Zeit-Online, Handelsblatt, Pro7\/Sat1, RTL Interactive) already tried to convince German courts to outlaw AdBlock Plus\u00a0 &#8211; a software that allows users to block certain content while looking at websites. \u00a0So far\u00a0unsuccessfully. A few days ago, the WELT, which is part of the Springer family, tried to obtain a preliminary injunction [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[19449,19455,19474],"tags":[20316,20504,20505,20506],"class_list":["post-68098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-magazine-en","category-competition-law-antitrust-law","category-press-releases","tag-interim-injunction","tag-adblocker-en","tag-blockr-en","tag-springer-en"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68098","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68098"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68098\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68099,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68098\/revisions\/68099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}