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
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.
OLG Bamberg, final judgment of 18 March 2026, case no. 3 UKl 5/25 e | For the first time, a Higher Regional Court has held that the obligations relating to recommender systems and reporting procedures under the Digital Services Act are consumer-protective and can be enforced by consumer associations by way of an action for injunctive relief. In doing so, the Senate gives contour to indeterminate legal concepts governing the design of the de-personalisation option and of the formal notice-and-action procedure. We summarise the decision and provide guidance for practice.
The EUIPO saw no problem with OBELIX on goods such as firearms and explosives. Les Éditions Albert René did. In its judgment of 13 May 2026 in Case T-24/25, the General Court sided with the publisher — finding EUIPO's assessment of both reputation and the required link between the marks to be fundamentally flawed.
Symbols such as “®” and indications such as “patented” are widely recognised. They are encountered almost daily, for example on product packaging in shops. Known more precisely as “IP notices”, such symbols have become a standard feature of commercial practice in Germany. However, they are often misunderstood.
