Act against Digital Violence
The purpose of the law is to enable victims of rights violations in the digital space to enforce their rights more effectively. The key points of the draft are:
Right to information: Data subjects whose personal rights have been violated by certain criminal content shall have easier access to information about the identity of the users acting unlawfully. Online platforms and hosting services are obliged to provide this information.
Storage and blocking: An early court order for the storage of relevant data by service providers is intended to prevent such data from being deleted before the proceedings are concluded. In addition, a new instrument is introduced that allows for the blocking of user accounts by court order to prevent or stop serious infringements.
Authorized recipients: Social networks that are not based in an EU member state must continue to appoint a domestic authorized recipient. Providers from other EU member states may be required to appoint an authorized recipient for legal proceedings in individual cases.
Scope of criminal offenses: The law against digital violence covers, among other things, punishable hate speech, deep fakes and doxing. This broadening of the scope of criminal offenses is intended to ensure that a wide range of forms of digital violence are covered and prosecuted.
Proportionality: Court-ordered measures, such as account suspensions, must be proportionate and will only be ordered for a reasonable period of time.
Final remark: The law aims to strengthen victims' rights by providing more effective legal tools and options, without fundamentally questioning the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and anonymity on the internet. It remains to be seen how the draft will be handled after the federal elections.
You might also be interested in this
A trademark is one of a company’s most valuable assets. It stands for quality, recognizability, and trust among customers. In addition, a trademark enables a clear differentiation from the competition and strengthens the brand presence in the long term. These and many other advantages speak in favor of protecting a sign as a trademark at an early stage.
The enforceability of EUIPO cost decisions is an issue that often plays a secondary role in trademark law practice. However, according to Art. 110 EUTMR and Art. 71 of the EUDR, any decision by the Office that fixes costs constitutes a directly enforceable title in all EU Member States.
On the ruling of the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of 10 December 2025 (Ref. 5 U 104/24). We summarise the extensive decision, analyse it, and provide an outlook on the further proceedings.
Almost exactly one year after filing its lawsuit against OpenAI, GEMA achieved a major victory against the US AI company before the Regional Court of Munich. The court ordered OpenAI to cease and desist, provide information and pay damages.
