Deutschland (DE)

Germany

Since February 2001 a special project group for Email Marketing of the German Multimedia Association has been concerned with developing guidelines. Their definition of "acceptable email marketing" is firmly based on "Opt-In". Recommendations for "spam victims" and an overview of the legal situation are included on the DMMV site.

The local court in Dachau does not consider unsolicited advertising emails sent to companies as an unauthorised intrusion. A local software company had demanded approx. EUR 35 compensation from a firm which had sent a 2.5 MByte PDF file containing advertising material.

In its judgement of 10 July 2001 the Dachau court rejected the suit. Spam along with other advertising is socially acceptable and necessary in order to keep the economy going. The court argues that advertising emails hardly interfere with business operations as opposed to fax and telephone -- this because unwanted messages can be deleted quickly and without trouble. Therefore there was no interference with business operations according to §823 of the Civil Code.

Somewhat contradictory to the above-mentioned line of reasoning, the court apparently did recognise the plaintiff's right to apply for a cease-and-desist order. The verdict is not subject to appeal owing to the small sum in question.

News Report (in German)     Plaintiff's Report and Commentary (in German)
 

A series of verdicts in court cases is available in German on the Online-Recht site under the theme "Email Werbung" (Email Advertising).

The text of a bill before the Bundestag to implement the Distance Selling Directive (97/7/EC) is available in German as a .DOC or a .PDF file. (see esp. A.III.4.c, p. 53-61)

Basically, the position is that no separate measures will be instituted to implement Article 10 because legislation already in place implies an "opt-in" regime for all commercial communications. This is consistent with the provisions of Article 14 of the same Directive under which a Member State can enact or retain stricter measures than those minimal provisions provided for in the Directive.

The actual measures are those in the Federal Civil Code governing trespass, which can be invoked by individuals, and in the Unfair Competition Law, which can be invoked by businesses in the same market as the one advertising by improper means.

(1999-06-21)
 

A major controversy resulted from what was reported as a bland assurance by Mr. Felsenberg, Chair of the German Multimedia Association (DMMV) that "spam will be permitted" as a result of the latest proposal for new EU directive on legal aspects of electronic commerce. Mr. Felsenberg was quick enough to point out that neither he nor the DMMV was actually advocating UCE as a marketing tool, but the denials were not accepted as being sufficiently vehement.

Positive results of the statement and the ensuing reaction:-

• The launch of the Vote Against Spam petition, and
• The public launch of EuroCAUCE.

Further discussions led to the legal counsel becoming convinced that "Opt-In" was the only scheme that ultimately made sense. Later on the DMMV made a point of surveying its membership, who overwhelmingly endorsed "Opt-In".

(1999-03-24)
 

Lawsuits brought before the State Court in Berlin have thus far resulted in preliminary injunctions against the spammers. The Unfair Competition Law and the Civil Code provisions regarding what amounts to trespass or injury are the legal basis for these actions. Final verdicts have not been handed down yet.

(Beebit 1998-06-08)
 

No changes proposed to existing legislation regarding contact by telecommunications, which meet or exceed the minima proposed in the EU Directives. Prior consent is required in all contacts, but definitive court verdicts concerning email have yet to be handed down. A sender of UCE has been permanently enjoined from continuing the practice as a result of a decision by the State Court in Traunstein, and assistance with legal costs (the defendent was bankrupt) denied. Because the case never went to full trial, the verdict is seen as applying exclusively to the one instance. The basis of the plaintiff's case was the Unfair Competition Law.

(Beebit 1998-05-29)