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
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.
The General Court also dismisses OpenAI’s action: No EU trademark protection for the word mark “OPENAI”—at least for now.
LG München I, judgment of 31.07.2026 – 42 O 763/25. In its second landmark judgment on the relationship between copyright and AI training, the Munich Regional Court (LG München I) has found the operator of the AI music generator Suno liable for infringement of copyright in six popular musical works. Notably, the 42nd Civil Chamber has, for the first time in a German judgment, applied the US fair use doctrine to AI training – and rejected it. We summarise the decision and set it in context.
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’.
