Dispute Surrounding Efficiency and Ethics of Adblockers
In a recent development, Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has sent the legal dispute between Axel Springer and Adblock Plus back to the lower court for a retrial, signifying the need for further clarification on the admissibility of adblockers under copyright law [1][2].
The case revolves around the Adblock Plus software developed by the Cologne-based company Eyeo. The core legal issue at hand is whether the use of adblockers like Adblock Plus infringes on Axel Springer's copyrights by altering the presentation of their website content.
Earlier rulings by the Hamburg Regional Court and the Hamburg Higher Regional Court in 2023 determined that modifying how a website is displayed in a browser through adblocking does not equate to a copyright violation. However, the higher courts have expressed a need for clearer legal standards on this matter.
Adblock Plus blocks ads on websites by analysing the source code and identifying elements that represent advertising. Axel Springer, on the other hand, argues that ad blockers unlawfully intervene in the constitutionally protected offering of media companies. They claim that ad blockers damage the integrity and a central source of financing for journalism and endanger open access to opinion-forming information on the internet.
In the past, Germany's largest publishing house, Axel Springer, tried to stop Adblock Plus with an antitrust lawsuit but was unsuccessful. In the new attempt, Springer relies on copyright, arguing that ad blockers undermine their revenue model and violate copyrights.
Springer considers this ruling a major success for the protection of online journalism. However, Eyeo remains convinced that no company should be allowed to prohibit users from determining their browser settings or force downloads of content or tracking. The decision to use the ad blocker lies with the user of the internet sites, not with the defendant company.
The BGH has overturned the OLG ruling and criticised it for not being clear about which protected subject matter it based its decision on. The Higher Regional Court in Hamburg must revisit the issue and examine both technical and legal aspects.
This dispute remains a significant test case for how copyright law applies to adblocking technology in Germany and potentially in Europe. The legal battle between Axel Springer and Adblock Plus continues, with the most recent development being a partial victory for Axel Springer in 2025.
| Aspect | Details | |-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Current status | BGH (Federal Supreme Court) returned case to lower court for retrial in 2025 | | Past rulings (2023) | Lower courts ruled no copyright violation from website display changes by adblockers | | Core legal issue | Whether adblockers' changes to website display amount to copyright infringement | | Broader implication | Need for clearer copyright law interpretation regarding adblocking and content alteration |
References: [1] [URL for the news source 1] [2] [URL for the news source 2]
- The legal controversy between Axel Springer and Adblock Plus has been sent back to a lower court by Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH) for a retrial, which indicates the need for more precise legal standards concerning the admissibility of adblockers under copyright law, particularly when it comes to technology's influence on general-news websites.
- In the dispute over the Adblock Plus software developed by Eyeo, both parties have made strong arguments - Axel Springer maintaining that ad blockers unlawfully interfere with media companies' constitutional right to offer content and finance journalism, while Eyeo insists on upholding users' rights to control their browser settings and access information without forced downloads or tracking.
