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
Since 27 September 2026, stricter rules on unfair commercial practices introduced by the EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo) Directive have applied in Germany. This raises a pressing question for manufacturers and retailers: What happens to products and packaging manufactured or placed on the market before that date which no longer comply with the new requirements? Can these stocks still be sold, or do businesses face injunctions, product recalls and, potentially, the destruction of perfectly usable goods?
On 17 September 2026, the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO issued an interlocutory decision in KIRA (fig.) / QIRA (R-1989/2025-1) referring the case to the Grand Board of Appeal. At stake are two deceptively simple questions with potentially very large consequences: (1) is the term "software" clear and precise enough to serve as the basis for trade mark protection at all and (2), if so, is software similar to motor vehicles?
In 2019, in an article for the Festschrift honoring Paul Ströbele, I examined how companies can defend themselves when their trademarks are used without consent as eye-catching vehicles for political messages.
OLG Bamberg, judgment of 29 July 2026 – 3 UKl 13/25 e | The Third Civil Senate of the OLG Bamberg continues to develop its Digital Services Act case law. For the first time, it specifies how far providers must disclose the weighting of their recommendation system parameters; at the same time, it prohibits login requirements as a precondition for reporting illegal content. We summarise the decision and provide guidance for practice.
