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
In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (C-788/24), the ECJ followed the Opinion of Advocate General Rantos in the legal dispute concerning the online publication of “The Diary of Anne Frank”. At its core, the case centred on the question of whether geoblocking measures constitute effective technological protection measures against copyright infringements, even if they can be circumvented by VPN services. The Court has now answered this question with a clear ‘yes’.
The judgment ‘Obligation to Return VI’ (I ZR 123/25) of 3 June 2026 is – as the name suggests – the sixth judgment by the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on the so-called obligation to return applicable to hire cars. Following the pronouncement of the judgement, it was widely reported that the BGH had confirmed the continued validity of one of the most controversial provisions of passenger transport law. In the meantime, the dust has settled somewhat and it is becoming clear that this interpretation falls far short of the mark. Indeed, it follows from the grounds of the judgement that maintaining the obligation to return contravenes EU law if one takes its traditional objective and justification as a basis.
In November 2025, the EUIPO Boards of Appeal published a case-law research report on the “Thomson Life doctrine” and the concept of an element’s “independent distinctive role” in composite trade marks. The report is not binding, but it is a useful attempt to bring order to an area of trade mark comparison that even the EU Courts have applied inconsistently.
From 2 August 2026, the labelling obligation under Article 50(4) of the EU AI Act applies – and it reaches practically anyone who uses generative AI professionally to create images, videos, or text. On 10 June 2026, the European Commission published the final Code of Practice on the labelling of AI-generated content. We explain when a label is required, what it must look like, and what risks arise if it is missing.
