Search results for

The real estate industry has long been considered conservative and strongly influenced by traditional brick-and-mortar structures. However, the emergence of PropTech has fundamentally changed this image. Digital solutions for increasing efficiency, reducing costs and creating new business models are bringing about lasting change in the industry. This opens up enormous innovation potential for real estate companies – but at the same time, the acquisition of PropTech companies brings with it its own unique challenges. Unlike the acquisition of traditional real estate or portfolios, the focus here is on intangible assets, intellectual property rights and technological assets.

This article highlights the legal peculiarities of PropTech acquisitions and shows how real estate companies can align their M&A strategies with the digital transformation. Dr Matthias Nordmann explains the key legal and structural issues, how technology investments increase company value and which regulatory framework conditions need to be taken into account. He also shows how IP rights and digital assets can be legally secured – a decisive factor for the success of M&A transactions in the PropTech sector.

Opportunities through digitalisation

The construction and real estate industry is undergoing change. Rising costs coupled with falling margins require a long-term and sustainable rethink. Conservative ‘bricks and mortar’ approaches, which still characterise large parts of the sector today, will soon offer little economic viability without a structured digital transformation. Far-reaching consolidation and automation will be virtually indispensable in terms of increasing efficiency and optimising costs. It is well known that diamonds are formed under pressure, and so the pressure on the industry also offers prospects for a growing number of PropTech start-ups as well as established PropTech companies. Smart building technologies and PropTech innovations are not only changing the way real estate is developed, managed and used, but also the strategic orientation of the companies themselves.

Market

As one of the growth markets par excellence, PropTech offers considerable incentives for the real estate industry. Forward-looking technologies can be found at all ends of the value chain, from property search, valuation, analysis and financing to digitisation in the areas of construction, development and property management. German PropTech champions such as McMakler, PlanRadar, Vermietet.de, Exporo, Homeday and, last but not least, Scout24 have long since established themselves as major players in the market. Small to medium-sized start-ups are proving to be particularly attractive options for M&A transactions, especially in terms of technology and personnel. In 2024, there were already 1,264 active PropTech start-ups in Germany, representing growth of 41 % compared to the previous year (source: blackprint PropTech Report 2024) – and the trend is rising!

Reasons for a transaction in the PropTech sector

M&A deals, especially acquisitions, offer established real estate giants opportunities to equip themselves technically for the future. Last but not least, the acquisition of late-stage start-ups opens up access to young, IT-, AI- and technology-savvy teams that can be integrated into existing corporate structures as part of so-called acquihires. The integration of AI and automation functionalities can quickly become a driver of efficiency and value creation. Traditional construction and real estate companies such as TPG Real Estate and Sprengnetter have already made their mark in terms of PropTech investments with the acquisitions of Aareon and 21st Real Estate, equipping their digital infrastructure and data expertise for the future. The resulting technological acceleration brings with it competitive advantages and access to new business models such as digital rental agreement processes and smart building services. Conversely, M&A is also an attractive exit strategy for late-stage start-ups when late financing rounds stall.

Legal peculiarities

However, PropTech M&A also confronts acquiring companies with a variety of challenges. Unlike traditional real estate deals, it is not bricks and mortar that determine value, but primarily intangible assets. 

• Such M&A deals are often characterised by typical venture capital structures on the part of the targets, where investor rights and liquidation preferences have a major influence on the terms of the transaction. Cap tables are often fragmented and complex, making thorough due diligence essential for coordinating founder, venture capital and business angel investments. Employee participation programmes such as ESOPs or VSOPs also play a key role, as they can significantly influence the distribution of the purchase price in exit scenarios. 
• Intellectual property rights (IP) are often the most important value carrier for PropTech start-ups: these include registered rights such as software patents, trademarks, utility models and design patents, related trademark rights such as domain rights and company trademarks, but also soft IP such as, in particular, copyright usage rights to software. Thorough IP due diligence of all strategically relevant areas of review is therefore a key success factor in PropTech deals. Central to this is the protection of IP, rights to databases, compliance with data protection and IT security requirements, the structure and risks of SaaS contracts, and regulatory and technical compliance for AI applications.
• A clearly documented chain of title, proof of source codes, and well-functioning term management for software patents or trademark rights are key factors in the valuation of the start-up and willingness to invest. Stable legal protection of the technology plays a central role. Unresolved legal issues can lead to costly rework or conflicts with contributors and competitors and ultimately become a deal breaker. Clear documentation is essential, especially in the area of open source compliance, as the software used may lead to the infection of derivative works under certain circumstances. The result is the threat of free disclosure of source codes, loss of rights of use, in particular commercial marketing opportunities, in the event of licence violations, injunctive relief and claims for damages, as well as reputational damage that is almost impossible to repair. It is therefore advisable, as part of IP due diligence, to request a complete list of all software components used and, if necessary, an automated scan for open source software.
• Inadequate patent compliance, risky contractual clauses in SaaS contracts, and low standards of IT security or AI governance can also quickly become deal breakers or, at the very least, lead to significant price reductions, renegotiations, or, in the worst case, the termination of the transaction. Furthermore, special regulations such as the GDPR and the recently enacted AI Regulation come into play in the context of due diligence in order to avoid exposing the acquiring company to significant sanction risks. Comprehensive documentation of historical and ongoing IP-related litigation regarding infringement, injunction and remuneration disputes, both on the asset and liability sides, is essential.
• At the same time, particularly in light of the value creation through IP, the seller's confidentiality interests, which are usually particularly pronounced in this context, must be taken into account and reconciled with the buyer's need for information. The protection of inventions, trade secrets and know-how is particularly important in this context. Appropriate confidentiality agreements and procedural, staged or limited due diligence processes are suitable for this purpose.

Conclusion and outlook

A successful PropTech acquisition requires a targeted adjustment of M&A strategies, as the focus here is on sustainable value enhancement. It is no longer sufficient to rely solely on traditional real estate M&A consulting. In-depth specialist legal knowledge, particularly in the areas of IP and IT, is crucial in order to identify and eliminate technological risks and regulatory pitfalls at an early stage. A special information request list for PropTech deals is extremely important as a starting point for the systematic evaluation of all legally relevant aspects. It is accompanied by special IP and IT guarantees (reps & warranties) in the purchase agreement documentation.

The Federal Constitutional Court has refused to hear a constitutional complaint filed by a Berlin gallery owner couple against the publication of the novel ‘Innerstädtischer Tod’ (Inner-City Death) by Luchterhand Verlag (Ref. 1 BvR 773/25). The publisher and author Christoph Peters are therefore free to continue distributing the work without restriction.

The judges in Karlsruhe stated that there were no obvious irreparable violations of fundamental rights in the novel. It was reasonable to expect the complainants to first conduct proceedings on the merits of the case. The Hamburg Regional Court and the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court had previously rejected applications for a ban on the book in preliminary injunction proceedings. 

"The Federal Constitutional Court has made it unmistakably clear that the threshold for interfering with artistic freedom is high. Authors of fictional works are permitted to make references to the present, address current events and process them literarily – all of this is protected by the constitution," explains Dr Konstantin Wegner, partner at SKW Schwarz, representing the Penguin Random House publishing group, which also includes Luchterhand Verlag. ‘The decision provides legal certainty for literary engagement with contemporary issues and thus sends a signal to authors and publishers as a whole,’ Wegner continues.

PropTech: Legally protected by Intellectual Property

The real estate industry is in the midst of a digital transformation that is becoming increasingly important under the buzzword ‘PropTech’ – property technology. PropTech encompasses technological innovations that affect the entire life cycle of a property: from planning, financing and marketing to operation and management. Start-ups and established companies are developing new digital business models, using artificial intelligence, blockchain or Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, thereby bringing about lasting change in the industry.

However, this development not only presents economic opportunities, but also raises complex legal issues. The focus is on the protection of intellectual property (IP), as innovations are the central capital of the new business models. Without effective protection, companies run the risk of having their developments copied, imitated or devalued by insufficient legal enforcement (so-called ‘dilution’). At the same time, digital technologies even harbour an increased potential for infringement, as they are often easier to replicate and reproduce. Young companies in particular are therefore faced with the dilemma of how much investment in IP protection makes sense for them, bearing in mind that only an effective IP portfolio can protect them from being squeezed out by large established players.

This article discusses the possibilities and relevance of acquiring IP rights in the context of PropTech. It shows why the topic is highly relevant to the real estate industry, what legal challenges exist and how entrepreneurs, investors and project developers can legally protect their innovative strength. The aim is to provide readers with practical solutions that enable them to maintain their competitiveness and minimise risks.

The Real Estate Industry: A Shift from Tangible to Intangible Assets and its Implications

The real estate industry has traditionally been strongly influenced by capital, land and buildings. However, with increasing digitalisation, intangible assets – data, software, algorithms, digital platforms – are becoming increasingly important and are becoming part of business models.

PropTech companies are developing innovative solutions such as automated valuation models, smart building technologies, digital marketplaces and applications for predictive maintenance. These innovations are highly dependent on intellectual property rights.

The fundamental aspects of this topic can be divided into three areas:

1. Protection of technical innovations through patents and trade secrets
2. Protection of digital platforms, software and data through copyright and database rights, and
3. Protection of reputation and investments in brand awareness through trademark registrations.

Each of these areas is highly relevant for real estate companies, developers and investors, as it directly influences the value of a business model. For example, a company that develops a smart and innovative building control system will hardly be able to maintain its market position against imitators without effective patent protection, as the technology can be quickly and easily copied.

The legal implications are manifold: on the one hand, companies must ensure that their innovations are adequately protected. On the other hand, there is a risk of unknowingly infringing on the rights of others. Finally, compliance aspects must also be taken into account, for example when using personal data in digital platforms. Companies must therefore not only protect their innovations, but also develop a systematic IP strategy that both secures their own rights and respects the rights of others.

The Interplay of IP in the PropTech Sector

The aim must be to ensure comprehensive and needs-based protection. This requires reconciling various aspects and challenges.

a) Complexity of Intellectual Property Rights:
A key challenge in the PropTech sector is the multitude of possible IP rights. While patents are relevant for technical inventions such as new sensor technology or IoT applications, software is generally protected by copyright. Platforms can also be protected by database rights. At the same time, trademark law plays an important role, as a strong brand facilitates market access and increases recognition. Once a product has established itself as ‘the original’ under a strong brand, it becomes all the more difficult for imitators to break into the resulting market position. The challenge for companies is to select the appropriate protection instruments and combine them systematically.

b) International Brand Presence:
As PropTech solutions are often digital and scalable, companies quickly seek international expansion. This has significant legal implications: IP rights are territorially bound and must be registered and enforced separately for each relevant country. Companies are therefore faced with the task of developing an international intellectual property strategy at an early stage. Solutions may include European patent applications, EU trademarks or international registrations.

c) Contractual Issues:
PropTech companies often work in complex contractual relationships with construction companies, project developers, investors or software entrepreneurs. Without clear contractual provisions, there is a risk that rights to developments or data will be distributed in an unclear manner. Precise IP clauses in contracts are essential here. At the same time, liability issues arise: who is responsible if a PropTech solution infringes the rights of third parties or causes errors during operation? Companies should therefore carefully structure the service relationships in their contracts and liability limitations.

d) Compliance, Data Protection and Data Ownership:
Data is playing an increasingly important role in the PropTech sector. Particular attention must therefore be paid to the use of personal data, for example in smart building or platform solutions. Data protection regulations, in particular the GDPR, apply here. Companies must ensure that their products are designed in compliance with data protection regulations. Technical and organisational measures to protect data are essential. Since the Data Act came into force, however, the issue of data ownership and data allocation has also become increasingly important. As a company, do I have access to the data I need? And even if this is the case, to whom do I have to disclose the data if necessary? 

Companies can meet these challenges by addressing the question early on of what valuable IP they are creating, where the particular risks for their own business model lie, and how they can protect themselves holistically. This includes the early identification of innovations worthy of protection, the development of an international IP portfolio, the integration of clear contractual provisions, and the establishment of a compliance system. In addition, so-called ‘freedom-to-operate’ analyses should be carried out during development and before market entry in order to avoid infringing third-party property rights. It is also important to check whether your own products comply with general compliance obligations, such as data protection minimisation obligations and the requirements for data privacy by design and default.

What Specific Steps should be Taken?

To minimise legal risks in the PropTech sector, companies should integrate best practices into their day-to-day business. Based on our experience, we recommend starting with the following measures:

a) Strategic IP Planning:
Companies should develop an IP strategy early on that is aligned with their business objectives. This includes identifying key innovations, selecting the appropriate intellectual property rights and defining priorities for international markets. It is advisable to review and adjust this strategy regularly, as technologies and markets are constantly evolving.

b) Contract Drafting:
IP issues should be explicitly regulated in all contracts with developers, partners and investors. This includes the clear allocation of rights of use, ensuring exclusivity, agreeing on confidentiality obligations and liability provisions. Standardised contract templates are often not helpful in this regard, as they usually do not meet individual needs and must therefore always be adapted to the specific case.

c) Compliance and Training:
In addition to formal intellectual property registration, establishing internal IP compliance is of great importance. Employees should be trained in the handling of intellectual property to avoid unintentional infringements. In addition, companies should implement procedures for monitoring markets in order to identify infringements of their rights at an early stage and take action against them.

Best practices show that companies that understand IP as an integral part of their corporate strategy and not just as a legal ‘add-on’ are more successful in the long term. A combination of legal protection, organisational measures and continuous adaptation to market changes is the key.

Conclusion and Outlook

The digitalisation of the real estate industry opens up enormous opportunities, but also brings with it new legal challenges. PropTech companies are faced with the task of effectively protecting their innovations so as not to become pawns of large, established market players. The protection of IP is not just a legal formality, but a key competitive factor. Companies that develop a clear IP strategy, draft contracts carefully and implement compliance structures will secure sustainable competitive advantages.

In the future, the pressure to innovate in the industry is expected to increase further. Issues such as artificial intelligence, blockchain-based transactions and smart city concepts will raise new questions about IP protection. Companies must be prepared to continuously expand their intellectual property strategies and adapt them to new legal frameworks. This is the only way to maintain a legally secure and successful position in the dynamic PropTech market in the long term.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long since found its way into almost all industries and is significantly changing how companies design processes, make decisions and generate value. The real estate industry is also affected by this trend. From automated property valuation and data-driven forecasts of rent price trends to intelligent building control systems, AI has long since arrived in the real estate sector.

With the adoption of the EU AI Act, the world's first comprehensive regulation of artificial intelligence, a legal framework has now been established that is of considerable importance for companies in this industry.

This topic is particularly relevant because the real estate industry is highly data-driven and is increasingly integrating AI-supported systems into business models and projects. At the same time, the question arises as to what legal challenges this entails and how entrepreneurs, investors and project developers can position themselves in a legally compliant manner.

The AI Act takes a risk-based approach. Certain applications in real estate projects – such as biometric access systems or algorithmic risk assessments – will potentially fall into high-risk categories. This results in increased compliance requirements, liability risks and documentation obligations.

In the following, we highlight the legal implications of using AI, how companies can get to grips with AI compliance projects and what recommendations for action can be derived for practical application.

Why is AI a Legal Issue in the Real Estate Industry?

The EU AI Act aims to create uniform rules for the use of AI within the European Union. It is based on a risk-based approach that divides AI applications into four categories: prohibited systems, high-risk applications, AI systems with limited risk, and AI systems with minimal risks. For the real estate industry, this means that different obligations apply depending on the use case.

The first fundamental aspects are the identification of applications in the real estate sector that could fall under the legal regulation and the categorisation of AI systems within the meaning of the AI Act. Practical examples and the legal implications include:

• Automated property valuations: AI systems that calculate property prices or rental yields can lead to misevaluations and must be designed to be transparent.
• Smart building technologies: Intelligent building control systems based on usage data may fall within the scope of personal data.
• Tenant and credit checks: The use of algorithmic risk assessments in applicant screening will often have to be classified as a high-risk application and will require enhanced compliance measures.
• Security and access systems: Facial recognition or biometric access controls are generally considered high risk and are also subject to strict obligations.

These aspects are highly relevant for real estate companies, builders and investors, as they open up new opportunities – such as efficiency gains, improved forecasts and cost savings – but also entail new legal obligations. Violations of the AI Act can result in substantial fines based on the company's turnover.

The legal implications primarily concern the obligation to assess risks, transparency and documentation requirements, and responsibility for the quality of the data used. In future, real estate companies must ensure that AI systems do not have a discriminatory effect, that results remain traceable and that the systems used are continuously monitored. This means a considerable need for organisational and legal adaptation and the implementation of an effective compliance management system in the field of AI.

What Legal Considerations Apply when Using AI?

The entry into force of the EU AI Act presents a wide range of legal challenges for companies in the real estate industry. The following areas are particularly relevant:

a) Liability issues: The real estate industry operates in a liability-intensive environment. Incorrect forecasts or discriminatory systems can lead not only to financial losses but also to reputational damage. Who is responsible if an AI system makes an incorrect property valuation or an applicant is disadvantaged due to an algorithmic error? Clear provisions on warranties, liability limits and recourse options are recommended in all contracts with service providers. The AI Act also stipulates that companies using high-risk AI must comply with comprehensive testing and documentation requirements. Violations of these obligations are subject to significant penalties. Companies should therefore establish internal quality assurance processes and clearly assign responsibilities.

b) Compliance and data protection issues: Many AI applications in the real estate industry process personal data, for example in credit checks or when using smart building systems. Here, the requirements of the AI Act overlap with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Companies must ensure that AI systems are operated in compliance with data protection regulations. This includes, among other things, conducting data protection impact assessments, minimising data risks and ensuring transparency towards data subjects. When it comes to granting loans or managing (tenant) applicants, the regulations on profiling under the GDPR must be observed.

c) Organisational challenges: The AI Act requires that high-risk systems may only be used under strict conditions. These include setting up a risk management system, documenting how the system works, human oversight, and continuous monitoring. Companies must therefore create internal compliance structures that combine both legal and technical expertise.

Solutions: A multi-stage approach is recommended to overcome these challenges:

1. Inventory: Identification of all AI systems used in the company.
2. Risk classification: Classification according to the categories of the AI Act.
3. Contract adjustment: Revision of existing and future contracts with AI providers.
4. Compliance integration: Establishment of an internal control and monitoring system.
5. Training and awareness: Employees must be trained in the legal requirements.
6. External consulting: Collaboration with specialist lawyers and IT security experts.

In this way, real estate companies can ensure that they minimise legal risks while taking advantage of the benefits of new technologies.

How can I Ensure Compliance when Using AI in my Company?

In order to successfully implement the legal requirements of the EU AI Act in practice, real estate companies should adopt a strategic approach. The following recommendations and best practices are particularly relevant:

1. Develop an early compliance strategy: Companies should not wait until the AI Act is fully applicable, but should start creating internal structures now. This includes setting up a compliance management system that is specifically tailored to dealing with AI.
2. Build interdisciplinary teams: The legal requirements affect not only the legal department, but also IT, data analysis, sales and facility management. It is therefore advisable to set up an interdisciplinary team that combines legal, technical and business expertise.
3. Systematically review and adapt contracts: Since many AI systems come from external providers, purchasing and licence agreements must be drafted in a legally compliant manner. It is particularly important to clarify liability issues and ensure contractually that providers meet the requirements of the AI Act.
4. Ensure transparency and documentation: Companies should implement processes to document the functioning of AI systems in a comprehensible manner. This is not only a legal requirement, but also strengthens the trust of investors, tenants and business partners.
5. Consider data protection and ethics: In addition to the minimum legal requirements, companies should introduce voluntary standards in the area of ethics and data protection. This creates competitive advantages and signals a sense of responsibility towards stakeholders.
6. Monitoring and continuous improvement: AI systems are evolving dynamically. Companies should therefore schedule regular audits and reviews to ensure that the systems they use continue to meet requirements in the long term.

Best practices therefore consist not only of legal implementation, but also of proactive, strategic use of the technology. Companies that see the AI Act as an opportunity can strengthen their market position while minimising legal risks.

Conclusion and Outlook

The EU AI Act marks a milestone in the regulation of AI and has significant implications for the real estate industry. The key findings are that real estate companies will in future be obliged to subject their AI systems to a risk assessment, ensure transparency and documentation, and carefully consider liability and data protection issues. The biggest challenges lie in the practical implementation of these requirements, especially for high-risk applications such as credit checks or biometric access systems.

It is crucial for companies to develop a clear compliance strategy in good time and to establish internal structures that combine both legal and technical expertise. Those who act early can not only minimise legal risks, but also strengthen the trust of investors, tenants and business partners.

The outlook shows that AI regulation will continue to increase. Companies must prepare for rising requirements in terms of transparency, responsibility and ethical standards. Those who prepare in good time can use the AI Act not only as a regulatory obligation, but also as an opportunity to position themselves in the market.

Will the planned changes to the German Building Code (BauGB) lead to sustainable housing construction?

When it comes to the term sustainability, people rarely question what it actually means. A simple Google search can be helpful here, and lo and behold, sustainability does not only refer to environmental protection and securing resources for the future. Rather, there is also social sustainability, which aims to prevent poverty and create humane living conditions. Housing construction has been at a standstill for many years. In the Federal Republic of Germany, there is an estimated shortage of 550,000 homes. Those that are available have become unaffordable for the majority of people, especially in metropolitan areas. What can the state do about this, especially the federal government itself, with only limited legislative powers in public building law? In fact, there have been various initiatives at the federal level to remedy the housing shortage. On the one hand, a draft bill on building type E was drawn up, which was intended to make construction cheaper by eliminating many so-called recognized rules of technology. In addition, there is an initiative to clarify what legally prevents simple and inexpensive construction, and most recently, the planned amendment to the Building Code in July 2025 under the keyword “Bau-Turbos” (construction turbo). Let's take a look at whether the changes can actually bring about social sustainability.

So far, only a draft bill to amend the Building Code has been presented, which was approved by the Federal Cabinet on June 18, 2025 (Act to Accelerate Housing Construction and Secure Housing). The legislative process is expected to be completed in fall 2025. The planned amendment has four objectives, namely

• to accelerate housing construction,
• to facilitate noise protection regulations,
• to extend conversion protection, and
• to extend the provision on areas with a tight housing market.

The new Section 246e of the Building Code is intended to serve as a kind of experimental clause allowing deviations from development plans if the deviation is compatible with public interests, taking into account the interests of neighbors. To this end, there will be an Annex 2 that sharpens public interests, among other things by stipulating that the projects must not cause any additional significant environmental impacts. The regulation is limited until December 31, 2030, and only applies to residential construction, the expansion or alteration of existing residential buildings, and changes of use for residential purposes. However, the municipality must agree to this (Section 36a BauGB). The outer area can also be included, provided that it is spatially connected to areas in accordance with Sections 30 ff BauGB (Section 246e (4)). Furthermore, the requirements for integration in Section 34 (1) BauGB are relaxed, but this also requires the approval of the municipality. Finally, Section 9 (1) No. 23 BauGB is amended. In future, deviations from the TA-Lärm values may be permitted in justified cases. Finally, the possibility for municipalities to designate areas with a tight housing market by means of a statutory order is extended until December 31, 2030 (Section 250 (1)). This will continue to make conversions difficult. 

The regulations are limited by the federal government's limited legislative powers in public building law. They are also subject to municipal approval, which stems from the municipalities' constitutional right to perform self-governing tasks under Article 28(2) of the Constitution. Nevertheless, they can be expected to have a significant impact on the expansion of the housing market. The construction of rental housing has so far failed not only because of the issue of profitability, which was mainly caused by the sometimes absurd regulations in the state building codes on fire protection, parking spaces, accessibility, etc., but also because of a lack of building land. Industrial estates were always too close, the land was already located in the outer area, the project did not fit into the unplanned inner area, or stipulations in the development plan, particularly regarding floor area ratio, did not allow for expansion. The legislature is now attempting to mitigate the latter obstacles. This should also provide an incentive for state legislators to “declutter” state building regulations. 

Investors should first start looking for suitable sites that meet the requirements of the amendment.

Since municipalities must grant approval for housing projects that do not yet fit in, do not comply with the provisions of the development plan, or are located in the adjacent outer area, the difficulties for housing construction are likely to be shifted from the legislative to the executive branch. An unlawfully refused approval refers investors – as has been the case up to now – to lengthy legal proceedings with an uncertain outcome, which makes almost every project unattractive. Furthermore, there are still a large number of legal regulations that make housing construction difficult. Particularly in adjacent rural areas, questions arise regarding environmental compatibility (UVPG), the existence of an impermissible encroachment on the natural and landscape features, or general and specific species protection (BNatSchG). In unplanned inner areas, it is still possible to argue whether a project fits in with the character of the immediate surroundings within a connected built-up district or not. Whether and which neighboring interests may be affected also remains in the usual unpredictable realm.

The draft law can only be the beginning of the solution to the rapid construction of affordable housing. The reduction of essential building standards, which the federal government is also striving for, lies largely outside its area of competence, namely in the state building regulations. Apart from building type E, which is to be implemented primarily through civil law measures, the biggest obstacles lie in excessive building code requirements for buildings and thus in the legislative competence of the states. In addition to the requirements of the state building regulations and the Model Administrative Regulations for Technical Building Regulations (MVV TB), which usually elaborate on them, there are countless so-called “generally accepted rules of technology” that have so far been regarded by the civil courts as always applicable, without the contracting parties having expressly regulated this. The problem with this is not only that some of these rules are published without any scientific basis, but also that there is no evaluation of their usefulness by government agencies. No one knows exactly what is included in the generally accepted rules of technology. If you ask the relevant trade circles, they will usually refer to DIN standards, and in most cases also to VDE standards. Regardless of the sheer number of DIN and VDE standards alone, even simple manufacturer or processing guidelines can be considered generally accepted rules of technology. This is despite the fact that they are by no means written by manufacturers with the aim of providing an objective representation of what is necessary or sensible in terms of construction technology, but exclusively in their own interests.

Companies that have already identified areas that are suitable for residential construction in accordance with the amendments to the BauGB should first contact the municipality and the building permit authority to determine whether and to what extent they share the same views on this matter. These planning law issues can be clarified in preliminary proceedings.

Another way of securing the requirements under building law is to conclude an urban development contract between the investor (project developer) and the planning municipality for the preparation of a so-called project-related development plan. Such a contract is commonly referred to as an implementation contract and is a contract under public law.

In the broadest sense, it is a mutual contract. However, the consideration provided by the municipality does not consist in the enactment of a corresponding project-related development plan (Section 1 (3) sentence 2 BauGB), but only in the fulfillment of obligations to cooperate in order to obtain a project-related development plan (drafting resolution, early and formal participation, weighing process, etc.).

Prerequisites for such a contract:

• Sovereignty of the project developer over the required land (§ 12 (1) BauGB),
• Feasibility of the project developer (§ 12 (1) BauGB),
• Coverage of development costs (§ 12 (1) BauGB).

In the case of a project-related development plan, the investor usually initiates the urban land-use planning procedure.  He presents his project to the municipality and suggests that a project and development plan be drawn up, which will later become the subject of the project-related development plan.

Conclusion and outlook

The amendments and additions proposed in the draft bill are a first step toward quickly creating affordable housing. They pave the way for new building land. The new coalition's approach of “simplifying” construction and, as a result, ensuring the creation of affordable housing must aim to lower legal building standards in addition to technical building standards. The former could be achieved by the federal government through an amendment to civil law, for which it has concurrent legislative power under Article 74(1)(1) of the Constitution. If the big push is to succeed, the federal government would have to commit to determining the technical standards itself. The small solution to the big challenge could be to draft a nomenclature of technical rules and classify them into the areas of “safety-relevant” and “comfort features.” The big solution would mean that the federal government, for example, through its Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, would set genuine, validated technical standards. Reducing the legal standards in state building codes, on the other hand, can only succeed if the federal government also convinces the states to remove excessive standards from their state building codes. Companies in the real estate industry should therefore work with their associations to develop legislative proposals aimed at streamlining building code requirements for residential buildings.

The European General Court (EGC) has dismissed Zalando's action against the classification of the platform as a ‘very large online platform’ within the meaning of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The decisive factor in the decision was the number of active users, which includes those persons who were exposed to information from third-party sellers as part of the partner programme.

In decisions dated 25 April 2023, the European Commission classified Zalando, a platform for the sale of fashion and beauty products, as a ‘very large online platform’ under the DSA. This classification is based on the fact that the average monthly number of active users in the EU, at over 83 million, is significantly above the threshold of 45 million (corresponding to approximately 10% of the EU population).

The classification entails additional obligations for Zalando, which are intended, among other things, to strengthen consumer protection and combat illegal content. Zalando had challenged this decision before the court.

The court has now ruled that Zalando constitutes an ‘online platform’ within the meaning of the DSA insofar as third-party sellers offer products via the so-called ‘partner programme’. However, Zalando's direct sales (‘Zalando Retail’) do not fall under this definition.

The number of active users was decisive in assessing the classification as a ‘very large online platform’. This includes persons who have received information provided by third-party sellers within the framework of the partner programme. Since Zalando was unable to demonstrate any way of distinguishing between users who had seen this information and those who had not, the Commission assumed that all users had been exposed to this information. This resulted in an estimated number of active users of over 83 million, which justified the classification as a ‘very large online platform’. Zalando had argued in vain that this figure was only around 30 million, based on sales in the partner programme.

The court also rejected Zalando's arguments that the provisions of the DSA violated the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and proportionality. The same applies to Zalando's argument that it had fully appropriated the content as its own and therefore could not be classified as an online platform. The court emphasised that platforms with at least 45 million active users can be used to distribute illegal products to a significant part of the Union's population. 

In its decision, the court confirmed its consumer-friendly stance and at the same time showed how crucial the specific design of online platforms can be in determining whether and to what extent the obligations of the DSA apply.

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence are constantly presenting new challenges for the law. The latest example: so-called “voice cloning.” What if AI imitates the voice of a well-known actor or voice actor so convincingly that it is almost indistinguishable from the original voice? A ruling by the Berlin Regional Court (Ref.: 2 O 202/24) provides a clear answer to this question and sets an important marker in the still young legal landscape of the AI age.

The right to one's own voice

The voice is more than just a means of communication — it is an essential part of one's personality. In the field of advertising and dubbing, the voice even has its own, sometimes considerable, “market value”. While the law explicitly regulates the protection of images and names, the protection of the voice is based on the general personality right. Such scope of protection can also apply to a mere imitation if a voice is imitated without permission in such a deceptive manner that third parties attribute it to the original person, thereby creating a false identity. Anyone who gains a commercial advantage in this way is unlawfully interfering with the asset allocation of the law (cf. Schwarz FilmR-HdB/Klingner, 6th ed. 2021, chap. 30, para. 1).

A case with a clear message

These very principles were applied in the present case—with the particularity that the imitation was generated by AI: A well-known voice actor sued a YouTuber who used a misleadingly similar, AI-generated voice for two of his own video posts on his channel. In its reasoning, the Berlin Regional Court made it clear that it makes “no difference” whether a voice is imitated by a human impersonator or AI.

The court recognized the use of the AI-generated voice as unauthorized commercial use, since the videos ultimately served to increase click rates and revenues. The defendant's objection that the politically satirical content of the videos meant that their use was covered by artistic freedom did not hold water, if only because the voice itself was not the subject of the satire. In addition, the incident was judged to be a serious infringement because it could give viewers the impression that the voice actor identified with the politically satirical content of the defendant's video posts.

The court ordered the defendant to pay a fictitious license fee. This sum was calculated on the basis of the plaintiff's standard market fees as an advertising voice.

Conclusion

The ruling sends a clear signal to the media and advertising industry. It makes it clear that although technological innovation simplifies “voice cloning,” the fundamental property rights to one's own voice as part of one's personality right remain unaffected. Anyone who uses the voice of a well-known personality, whether real or artificially generated, without consent must expect legal consequences.

Today, the movement of goods is more global and faster than ever before. As market participants, logistics companies are involved in imports and exports in a wide variety of jurisdictions. However, with the internationalisation of trade, there is also a growing risk of unwittingly becoming involved in legal violations, particularly trademark infringements.

For logistics service providers in particular, who act as pure service partners in the supply chain rather than as sellers, the question arises: Where does their own legal responsibility begin when third parties ship goods that infringe trademarks?

The Regional Court of Düsseldorf answered this question with remarkable clarity in case 37 O 42/24 – confirmed by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (20 U 9/25 of 7 August 2025): The logistics company can be held jointly liable as a so-called ‘interferer’. It is not possible to avoid liability as a ‘mere vicarious agent’. Rather, logistics companies must expect to be targeted themselves in future as ‘enablers’ of trademark infringements.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (20 U 9/25) confirms the decision of the Regional Court of Düsseldorf (37 O 42/24) 

The ruling concerns an injunction sought by a major sporting goods manufacturer that is the owner of various registered EU trademarks. Jerseys bearing these trademarks were sold in Europe via various online shops in China without the trademark owner's consent. The respondent, a logistics service provider based in Germany, provided its address as the return address for the packages. It also acted as the return address for undeliverable goods and stored them. These services were used for the shipment of counterfeit goods.

At the request of the trademark owner, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf issued a preliminary injunction by order and later confirmed it in its ruling. The appeal to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf was unsuccessful.

The Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled that even if the trademark infringement was committed by third parties – namely the manufacturer and distributor of the counterfeit goods – as perpetrators or participants, the logistics service provider was liable as a interferer. Even though the respondent did not sell or produce the goods itself, it enabled the trademark infringement because without the provision of its address, the parcels would not have reached the European market. A logistics service provider could be liable for interference if it deliberately and adequately contributed to the infringement of trademark rights and violated its inspection and monitoring obligations. In this respect, there was no general obligation to check all shipments without cause. However, the logistics service provider was obliged to take reasonable inspection and control measures after receiving specific indications of trademark infringements.

According to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf in the appeal proceedings, the specific allegation is that of ‘facilitating’ infringements. The issue is not whether the logistics provider itself infringes trademark rights, but whether it facilitates infringements by third parties.

It is therefore incumbent on the logistics service provider to check whether the goods in question infringe any rights. The objection that such checks are technically or economically impossible was rejected. The court clarified that although logistics companies are not required to carry out full checks, they are required to take appropriate organisational measures to significantly reduce the risk of infringements. Random checks should be carried out, especially in cases of obvious infringement. Imports into Germany from outside the EEA, particularly from China, should be classified as suspicious, as trademark rights are not regularly exhausted in this respect (Section 24 MarkenG, Art. 15 UMV).

What does this mean when dealing with goods that may infringe the law?

The ruling clearly shows that logistics companies are not just neutral transport providers, but can quickly become the focus of trademark liability. Anyone who provides addresses, warehouses or shipping services for third parties runs the risk of being held liable for trademark infringements. This can have serious consequences, ranging from warnings to legal action to enforce injunctions, claims for information and damages. But how can a logistics service provider protect itself against this? Managing directors should therefore introduce preventive compliance structures to minimise liability risks.

Contractual partners should therefore be checked in a KYC process to determine whether there are any grounds for suspicion of systematic trademark infringements, for example in the case of cheap online shops from third countries. If necessary, contracts and general terms and conditions should then be supplemented with assurances and penalties with regard to trademark infringements. The protection provided by corporate liability insurance may need to be supplemented to cover possible risks arising from trademark infringement and information claims. Random checks should be carried out and documented systematically, depending on the degree of risk. Employees should be instructed and trained accordingly.

Last but not least, a ‘notice-and-staydown’ procedure should be introduced, as is already common practice among operators of online platforms. This ensures that, following notifications from trademark owners, not only are the specific shipments in question withheld, but future similar infringements are also prevented. If a trademark owner does contact you, it is important to respond quickly, professionally and knowledgeably, to document the communication and to work proactively with trademark owners wherever possible in order to avoid legal escalation.

It is therefore important to be aware of the risks involved in handling trademark-infringing goods and to take appropriate risk minimisation measures. Please feel free to contact us for further information. 

German High Court Frustrates Redress against Rogue Ex-Employees 

A recent decision by the Federal Labour Court (BAG) is likely to cause headaches for employers in Germany, as it renders a common clause designed to prevent the misuse of trade secrets in employment contracts unenforceable. Employers who have used such provisions must now revise them or enter into separate non-disclosure agreements to effectively and swiftly protect their trade secrets. The Federal Labour Court is the highest court in the country for disputes between employers and employees. (Bundesarbeitsgericht, Judgment dated 17 October 2024 – 8 AZR 172/23)

In the case, an employee sent electronic files containing proprietary technical data to a competitor of their employer just prior to the termination of their employment. Upon learning of this breach, the employer sued the employee for misappropriation of trade secrets, seeking a permanent injunction.

The claim was primarily based on a catch-all clause preventing the employee from disclosing any trade secrets or information disclosed to him during his employment. The clause also prohibited any disclosures after termination of employment.

However, the court took issue with the complete and open-ended prohibition of disclosing any information obtained by the employee during his employment, arguing that this would prevent him from applying any know-how or expertise gained during his employment after its termination. This would result in an inability to apply any knowledge gained after employment, so enforcing the clause would unduly interfere with the employee's ability to find new employment. German courts routinely rule that employees may freely use know-how gained during employment, even if it is confidential.

To succeed with the suit, the employer would have had to argue all the statutory requirements of the German Act on Trade Secrets, including demonstrating that sufficient measures had been taken to protect the trade secret in question. In order to demonstrate this, the employer would have had to disclose and explain in detail the measures it had taken to protect its trade secrets. This can be burdensome for many employers, who may be reluctant to make these arguments in open court.

Employers can, of course, introduce more nuanced provisions in employment contracts to strike a better balance between their legitimate interests and those of their employees, particularly after termination. However, drafting such provisions is difficult and leaves the employer with considerable risks. It is often easier and more effective to ask an employee to sign a specific non-disclosure agreement (NDA) when they gain access to areas where confidentiality is of particular concern.  

What do lips, chins and noses have in common? Nowadays, they can be altered without a scalpel – a small cannula, a little hyaluronic acid, and the new contour is ready. This is rarely medically necessary. However, anyone who thinks that these ‘light cosmetic corrections’ are also treated lightly from a legal perspective is greatly mistaken. The Federal Court of Justice has now made a clear statement (judgment of 31 July 2025 – I ZR 170/24): Injections are also ‘surgical’ – at least in the sense of the German Medicines Advertising Act (Heilmittelwerbegesetz, HWG).

At the heart of the case: an aesthetically ambitious Instagram presence of a practice for non-invasive cosmetic procedures. The practice advertised using the usual before-and-after pictures – noses that were somewhat distinctive before, but delicate and smooth afterwards. The problem: Section 11 (1) sentence 3 no. 1 HWG prohibits advertising for medically unnecessary plastic surgery procedures using such image comparisons. And now the Federal Court of Justice has clarified that even ‘gentle’ corrections using hyaluronic acid injections fall under this prohibition.

This is quite remarkable. Until now, the term ‘surgical’ was usually reserved for classic surgical instruments – scalpels, clamps, anaesthesia. Now, even a cannula is sufficient if it interferes with physical integrity and changes the external appearance. Whether the result is reversible is irrelevant. In short: it is not the depth of the incision that matters, but the depth of legal understanding.

Anyone who now cries out ‘freedom of occupation!’ or ‘censorship!’ is referred by the Senate to good old health protection. Advertising with before-and-after pictures is particularly suggestive and could tempt people to expose themselves to risks without real necessity. Pain, swelling and, in the worst case, embolisms cannot be ruled out, even with injections.

The ruling shows that the legal assessment is not based on cosmetic advertising aesthetics, but on tangible legal considerations. And this consideration is clear: the protection of decision-making sovereignty – especially in the case of offers that are primarily marketed on the basis of their external image.

What does this mean for doctors with a affinity for aesthetic transformations on the internet? Be careful with before-and-after posts. Those who want to showcase their successes should either limit themselves to professional target groups – or find more creative ways to illustrate the effect of an injection. Perhaps with metaphors, sketches or poetic descriptions? This is certainly more legally secure.

In any case, the Federal Court of Justice makes it clear: even if cosmetic medicine is becoming gentler, advertising law remains strict. 

In its ruling of 31 July 2025 (I ZR 157/21), the Federal Court of Justice ruled that cheat software that only modifies runtime-related data in the working memory without affecting the source or object code does not constitute a copyright infringement. The Federal Court of Justice thus follows a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice and, at the same time, confirms the established interpretation of the scope of copyright protection for computer programs.

Background

The defendants distributed cheat software that allowed users to circumvent restrictions in games, such as time limits or the number of playable characters. The application did not interfere with the program code, but influenced temporary data in the working memory. The plaintiff considered this to be an impermissible modification of its program within the meaning of Section 69c No. 2 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG).

The Federal Court of Justice initially suspended the proceedings and referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The European Court of Justice clarified that copyright protection only covers the source and object code of a program, but not its mere execution or runtime-related states (judgment of 17 October 2024, C-159/23).

Decision

Consequently, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) now also finds, in accordance with Section 69a UrhG, that only the forms of expression of a computer program, in particular source and object code are protected by copyright. 

However, changes to volatile RAM data do not fall within the scope of protection and therefore do not constitute a ‘form of expression’ of a computer program protected by Sections 69a et seq. UrhG. 

Practical tip

The decision does not change the legal situation, but it does contribute to legal certainty. Technical interventions in the program flow that do not affect the code of the computer program itself remain permissible under copyright law. For manufacturers, this means that they cannot prevent such manipulations of the program flow under copyright law, but must primarily resort to technical protection measures or contractual restrictions.

With the support of SKW Schwarz, Borussia Dortmund has successfully defended itself against election advertising by the AfD that referenced the BVB club colours. The AfD had circulated election stickers for the local elections on September 14 in North Rhine-Westphalia with the slogan "Beim Fußball schwarz-gelb – am Sonntag blau" (“Black and yellow for football – blue on Sunday”). 

After thorough examination, Borussia Dortmund, represented by SKW Schwarz, took legal action against this form of election advertising. In Borussia Dortmund's view, this was an unlawful attempt to establish a link between BVB and a political stance and political voting behaviour by suggesting that a BVB football fan would or must also vote for the AfD. Borussia Dortmund issued an out-of-court warning to the AfD district association in Dortmund and AfD Member of Parliament Matthias Helferich. Both the AfD district association and the Member of Parliament who received the warning have since issued a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause.

Advisors to Borussia Dortmund: 
SKW Schwarz, Berlin: Sandra Sophia Redeker, Markus von Fuchs (both IP)

For consumers, geographical indications often signify exceptional quality and traditional craftsmanship. It is therefore common for advertisers to highlight a product’s origin. But what legal considerations apply when using geographical indications in advertising?

Geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed can be protected under EU law for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, formerly 1151/2012). In 1992, the EU introduced a quality scheme featuring the labels “PDO” (Protected Designation of Origin), “PGI” (Protected Geographical Indication), and “TSG” (Traditional Specialities Guaranteed) to safeguard and promote traditional and regional food products. These labels certify origin and quality – and provide consumers with reliable guidance when making purchasing decisions.

Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) 

The PDO label imposes the highest requirements: production, processing and preparation must all take place entirely within a precisely defined geographical area – and follow a recognised method. In other words, every stage of production must occur within the specified region. The specific quality or characteristics of the product must essentially be attributable to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors. A PDO can be applied for agricultural products, foodstuffs and wines. 

Examples from Germany include:  Allgäuer Bergkäse, Allgäuer Sennalpkäse, Allgäuer Emmentaler, Fränkischer Grünkern, Allgäuer Weißlacker, Stromberger Pflaume, Weideochse vom Limpurger Rind, Diepholzer Moorschnucke, Lüneburger Heidschnucke, Odenwälder Frühstückskäse. 

Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)

The requirements for a PGI are less strict than for a PDO: it is sufficient if just one stage of production – that is, production, processing or preparation – takes place in the specified region. The raw materials may come from other areas. Like the PDO, the PGI label can be applied for agricultural products, including foodstuffs and wines.

Examples from Germany include:  Aachener Printen, Abensberger Spargel, Aceto Balsamico di Modena, Bamberger Hörnla, Bayerische Brezn, Blutwurz, Dithmarscher Gans, Dresdner Christstollen, Frankfurter Grüne Soße, Fränkischer Obstler, Hessischer Apfelwein, Holsteiner Tilsiter, Lübecker Marzipan, Münchener Bier, Nürnberger Glühwein, Nürnberger Lebkuchen, Nürnberger Rostbratwürste, Oktoberfestbier, Salzwedeler Baumkuchen, Schwarzwälder Schinken, Schwäbische Maultaschen, Schwäbische Spätzle, Thüringer Glühwein, Thüringer Rostbratwurst, Westfälischer Pumpernickel.

Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSG)

The EU label "TSG" does not refer to a geographical origin but rather to a name that highlights traditional production or processing methods. The place of production is not decisive — what matters is solely the adherence to a historically verified production process. A practice is considered “traditional” if it can be proven to have been used within a community for at least 30 years and passed down through generations. The label can be applied for agricultural products, including foodstuffs.

In Germany, only “Kräuterhefe” has been applied for as a TSG. Registered TSG products include, among others, Pizza Napoletana (Italy), Mozzarella Tradizionale (Italy), Heumilch (Austria), Suikerstroop (Netherlands), Basterdsuiker (Netherlands), and Slovenska potica (Slovenia).

Rights and Scope of Protection

A registered name may be used by all market participants who sell agricultural products, foodstuffs, or wines that comply with the respective product specification. Compliance with these requirements is monitored by control bodies in the EU member states.

Registered geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed are not only protected against use for products that do not comply with the respective product specifications. The protection also extends to any direct or indirect commercial use, as well as to any misuse, imitation or evocation. In particular, the use of terms such as ‘style’, ‘type’, ‘method’, ‘as produced in’, ‘imitation’, ‘flavour’, ‘like’ or similar expressions is prohibited when the protected product is not actually present.

Unprotected Geographical Indications

Finally, it should be noted that even unprotected geographical indications cannot be used without restriction in advertising. They are also subject to the prohibition of misleading practices. A product may generally only be advertised with a geographical origin if it actually comes from the stated location. For example, the Regional Court of Cologne prohibited the use of the term “The Taste of Dubai” for a chocolate bar that was produced in Turkey (Case No. 33 O 525/24, decision of 6 January 2025). The decisive factor was that the advertising deliberately created a reference to Dubai with phrases such as “This chocolate brings the magic of Dubai straight to your home” and “with a touch of Dubai.”

By contrast, the Regional Court of Frankfurt considered the term “Dubai-Chocolate” to be permissible. According to the court, consumers do not expect the ingredients of the chocolate to originate from Dubai or the product to be manufactured there; rather, the designation is understood as a reference to a preparation method or recipe originating from Dubai (Case No. 2-06 O 18/25, decision of 21 January 2025).

Future Protection also for Craft and Industrial Products

Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 extends the protection of geographical indications at EU level for the first time to craft and industrial products. It will enter into force in all EU member states on 1 December 2025. The regulation establishes a unified EU-wide registration and protection system for non-agricultural products — such as jewelry, textiles, cutlery, glass, porcelain, natural stone, or furniture. This harmonizes and strengthens the protection of traditional European products like Limoges porcelain, Solingen knives, Carrara marble, or Madeira embroidery.

Conclusion

Geographical indications and traditional specialities are more than mere indicators of origin – they represent quality, authenticity, and often decades-old production methods. Anyone wishing to advertise using them should be aware of the legal requirements and risks involved. Both protected and unprotected geographical names are subject to the prohibition of misleading practices and can lead to legal consequences if used improperly. Companies are therefore well advised to carefully review their advertising claims before using geographical indications.

SKW Schwarz is further expanding its corporate law advisory and notarial services with the appointment of Dr. Max-Niklas Blome as partner, effective August 1, 2025.

Dr. Max-Niklas Blome brings extensive expertise in corporate and contract law, with particular strength in strategic advisory services during conflict situations. He advises clients across diverse industries, including manufacturing, banking, private equity, sports, and healthcare. His appointment will also strengthen the firm's notarial services in Frankfurt, which currently comprises four notaries.

Prior to joining SKW Schwarz, Max-Niklas Blome served as senior associate at Ashurst’s Frankfurt office. He launched his legal career in 2017 at Gleiss Lutz after studying in Germany and the United Kingdom. He has been recognized as “One to Watch” by Best Lawyers / Handelsblatt for several years.

“The continued development of our Frankfurt office and its notarial practice represents a cornerstone of our firm's strategic vision,” said Dr. Stephan Morsch, Managing Partner of SKW Schwarz. “Dr. Max-Niklas Blome brings invaluable expertise and fresh perspectives that will enhance and strengthen our team for years to come.”

Dr. Max-Niklas Blome adds: “SKW Schwarz provides a dynamic environment with opportunities to deliver comprehensive, top-tier client advisory services. I am excited to join the team and contribute actively to the continued growth of the Frankfurt office.”

This strategic hire reinforces SKW Schwarz’s commitment to expanding its Frankfurt office and strengthening its corporate law and notarial capabilities.

SKW Schwarz is mentioned in the first-ever WirtschaftsWoche ranking of the best law firms for private individuals in the category of inheritance law. In addition, Stefan Skulesch is highlighted as one of the “Best Lawyers 2025” in this field.

Congratulations on this great success!

How the ranking is compiled:
The Handelsblatt Research Institute surveyed over 26,000 lawyers in Germany, asking them which law firms and colleagues they would recommend in various areas of law. Over 5,500 qualified recommendations were included in the evaluation. On this basis, the editorial team honored 245 law firms and 233 lawyers for private individuals.

Collect points, save money, and get rewards—that's Payback's motto. But can you also collect points when purchasing medical devices such as hearing aids? According to the Federal Court of Justice: Yes! However, only to a very limited extent.

What happened so far...

The hearing aid chain amplifon advertised that customers would receive one Payback point worth one cent on their Payback account for every Euro spent in the store (including the purchase of hearing aids or other products for the hearing impaired) upon presentation of their Payback card. The Payback points collected can be paid out in cash or converted into non-cash rewards, vouchers, or donations.

The Center for the Prevention of Unfair Competition, a German institution for the protection of consumers and fairness in competition, considered advertising with Payback points for the purchase of hearing aids to be a violation of the prohibition on promotional gifts under the German Healthcare Advertising Act (Section 7 (1) “Heilmittelwerbegesetz”, short “HWG”) and therefore sued the hearing aid specialist.

According to the Healthcare Advertising Act (HWG), gifts and promotional items in the form of free goods or services are generally prohibited in product-related advertising for medicinal products, medical devices, and certain medical procedures and treatments (Section 1 (1) HWG) – with certain exceptions, which are regulated in Section 7 (1) sentence 1, clause 2, No. 1 to 5 HWG. One of these exceptions is "low-value trifles" (Section 7 (1) sentence 1 clause 2 No. 1 HWG).

The Regional Court of Hamburg (judgment of May 12, 2021 – 312 O 306/19), which initially dealt with this case, dismissed the action. On appeal, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (judgment of February 29, 2024 – 3 U 83/21) then partially amended the first-instance judgment and set the limit for the total value of the Payback points at 5 Euro per purchase of a product. The court held that only above this threshold there was a risk that consumers will be unduly influenced in their purchasing decisions. Below this threshold, the points constituted a "low-value trifle" within the meaning of Section 7 (1) sentence 1, clause 2. No. 1 HWG.

Other courts, however, had been stricter. For example, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (judgment of February 22, 2018 – 2 U 39/17) had already set the value limit for "low-value trifles" at 1 Euro in 2018, even in so-called HCP advertising, i.e. advertising aimed at healthcare professionals (HCP) such as members of the medical professions and traders in medical devices and medicinal products.

1 Euro or 5 Euros – what is the limit for a "low-value trifle"? The Federal Court of Justice now had to answer this question.

Federal Court of Justice: 1 Euro limit for low-value promotional gifts also applies to medical devices

The Federal Court of Justice rejected the opinion of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg in its ruling of July 17, 2025 (I ZR 43/24), thereby upholding the appeal lodged by the Center for the Prevention of Unfair Competition. According to the Federal Court of Justice, the value threshold below which an improper influence on the audience of the advertisement can be ruled out is only 1 Euro. The court said that this applies at least to public advertising, i.e., advertising that is not limited to HCPs. “Low-value trifles” are only objects of such low value that they represent an "expression of general customer friendliness”. In the case of gifts of higher value, there is a risk, particularly among consumers, that they will search less intensively for hearing aids more suitable for them as a result of the advertising and the promotional gift.

The court clarifies that the “low value” is not to be determined relatively in relation to the value of the goods, but absolutely. The individual value of one Payback point is also not decisive; rather, the total value of the number of Payback points collected for the purchase of the medical device is relevant. This total value may not exceed 1 Euro.

Payback points are not a cash discount according to the Federal Court of Justice

The Federal Court of Justice also dealt with the question of whether Payback points are to be regarded as cash discounts. This is relevant because gifts or promotional items that consist of "a specific or calculable amount of money" (discounts) are also excluded from the prohibition on promotional gifts pursuant to Section 7 (1) sentence 1, clause 2 no. 2 a) HWG – at least if they are not inadmissible discounts for medicinal products which are subject to statutory price control. For medical devices that are not price-controlled, cash discounts are therefore generally possible under Section 7 HWG.

However, according to the ruling, payback points are not cash discounts within the meaning of Section 7 (1) sentence 1, clause 2 no. 2 a) HWG. The court held that a cash discount is characterized by the fact that it is paid out or at least deducted from the invoice amount. This is not the case with payback points. Their value is only realized in subsequent transactions, for example when they are exchanged for other products or for shopping vouchers.

Higher value limit in advertising to healthcare professionals (HCPs)?

The Federal Court of Justice left open the question of whether a higher value limit applies to advertising to healthcare professionals (HCPs) for non-price-controlled medical devices. This assumption is supported by the fact that the court expressly justifies the low 1 Euro limit for promotional gifts for medical products aimed at the general public by stating that "in the case of advertising aimed at the general public, a lower value limit is to be assumed in view of the greater susceptibility of consumers to undue influence compared to advertising aimed at healthcare professionals." This could be understood as an indication that, in view of the assumed lower susceptibility of HCPs to influence through gifts and promotional items, the higher 5 Euro limit could possibly apply to advertising aimed at healthcare professionals.

Stricter standards in industry codes (e.g., FSA Code of Conduct)

It should be noted that some companies bound by codes of conduct are not even allowed to use the 1 Euro limit for promotional gifts.

The provisions of the FSA Code of Conduct concerning HCPs, for example, are stricter than those of the Federal Court of Justice in its ruling. This code of conduct of the institution "Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle für die Arzneimittelindustrie e.V." (FSA) regulates the cooperation of the pharmaceutical industry with HCPs, in particular with pharmacists, doctors, and other medical professionals. Some of its provisions go beyond the statutory provisions of the German Healthcare Advertising Act. Section 21 of the FSA Code of Conduct generally prohibits its member companies from granting any gifts or benefits to HCPs that do not serve a legitimate professional purpose. Even “low-value trifles” that would be permitted under Section 7 (1) sentence 1, clause 2 No. 1 HWG are generally prohibited under Section 21 of the FSA Code of Conduct. FSA member companies that are bound by the FSA Code of Conduct are therefore subject to even stricter standards than those set out in the new ruling of the Federal Court of Justice.

The law firm SKW Schwarz has successfully represented former Member of the Bundestag Stefan Gelbhaar in multiple media law proceedings following damaging allegations, achieving comprehensive rehabilitation.

The mandate, led by Götz Schneider-Rothhaar (Partner) and Fabian Bauer (Counsel), involved legal matters concerning media law, civil law, and strategic communication. The ongoing public reporting had severe consequences for the personal and professional life of the client.

Through legal action, substantial corrections of previous publications, support in issuing press releases, and an out-of-court compensation agreement, a rehabilitation was achieved. The out-of-court settlement with a leading media company included not only a formal apology to Stefan Gelbhaar, but also the publication of a joint press release and a financial settlement, the amount of which remains confidential.

"We are very pleased that our client was able to achieve substantial rehabilitation through a consistent and strategically guided legal process. Especially in cases with intense media attention, it is crucial to respond to defamatory reporting in a professional and legally sound manner," said Götz Schneider-Rothhaar, Partner at SKW Schwarz.

SKW Schwarz continues to handle related ongoing proceedings.

SKW Schwarz expands its corporate/M&A practice in Munich with an experienced legal trio. Partner Tobias Rodehau joins together with a counsel and a senior associate from Pinsent Masons, where he most recently headed the private equity/venture capital practice for Germany.

Tobias Rodehau advises German and international clients on venture capital and private equity investments as well as on national and cross-border M&A transactions. A key focus of his practice is transactions in the technology sector. Tobias Rodehau has particular industry expertise in financial services, healthcare and industrial goods. After positions at international commercial law firms, he joined Pinsent Masons as a partner in 2014.

”In the corporate/M&A area , we are pursuing a clear growth strategy to provide even more comprehensive support to clients in complex transactions,’ says Dr. Stephan Morsch, Managing Partner of SKW Schwarz. ‘With Tobias Rodehau and his team, we are gaining excellent reinforcement with distinctive sector and transaction experience, particularly in technology-focused industries, which perfectly complements our other advisory services.”

“I am very much looking forward to working with my renowned colleagues at SKW Schwarz and the opportunity to actively help shape further expansion in Tech M&A as well as the PE & VC practice,” says Tobias Rodehau. “SKW Schwarz's innovative profile and strategic focus on forward-looking business models, particularly in new media, healthcare, IT & digital business, align perfectly with our existing client structure and offer a wide range of expansion opportunities.’

Since 2016, the EU's Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform has been a central point of access for consumers and businesses to settle disputes arising from online purchase and service contracts out of court. Under Article 14 of the ODR Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013), online retailers were required to provide a link to the ODR platform on their websites or in their terms and conditions. 

However, this option for online dispute resolution was not taken up in practice. As only around 200 cases were referred to arbitration bodies across the EU each year, the platform was shut down. Regulation (EU) No. 2024/3228 repealed the ODR Regulation on 20 July 2025, thereby removing the obligation to provide a link to the platform.

What does this mean for online retailers?

The link to the ODR platform should be removed. Although it is questionable whether such an outdated reference to the no longer existing ODR platform constitutes misinformation relevant to warnings under unfair competition law (UWG), we strongly recommend revising the relevant provisions on out-of-court dispute resolution and any other contractual documents, such as general terms and conditions, in which the reference appears. Companies must continue to indicate, on the basis of the ADR Directive and the Consumer Dispute Resolution Act, whether they are willing to participate in arbitration proceedings and, if so, name the competent consumer arbitration body.

The discontinuation of the ODR platform due to its lack of efficiency is likely only the beginning. In the future, a reform of the regulations on alternative dispute resolution is to be expected, with the aim of adapting them to the ongoing digitalisation of the market and further strengthening consumer rights. It can be assumed that new, more efficient online tools for dispute resolution will be developed and established.

The Pay Transparency Act (EntgTranspG), which came into force in Germany in 2017, aimed to enforce equal pay between men and women. On 6 June 2023, the European Directive on strengthening equal pay between men and women (EntgTranspRL) came into force, introducing increased transparency and enforcement mechanisms. This new directive brings with it comprehensive changes that go beyond the current provisions of the German EntgTranspG. Member States are now required to transpose the Directive into national law by 7 June 2026. Below, we provide an overview of the key differences between the current German EntgTranspG and the new provisions of the European Directive, as well as tips for companies on how to proceed. 

The German EntgTranspG

• Individual right to information: Employees in companies with more than 200 employees have the right to receive information about the criteria and procedures for determining remuneration and the comparative remuneration for their job group.
   
• Equality reporting obligation: Companies with more than 500 employees that are required to publish management reports must report regularly on equality and equal pay.
   
• Company audit procedures: Companies must carry out company audits to verify equal pay.

New regulations under the EntgTranspRL

The EntgTranspRL also aims to enforce equal pay, but goes significantly beyond the existing provisions of the EntgTranspG. Specifically, it includes the following measures, among others:

• Remuneration transparency prior to employment (Art. 5): In future, employers must provide information on the standard starting salary for the respective position or its range in job advertisements and interviews. Applicants may not be asked about their previous salary. This applies to all employers regardless of their number of employees. In contrast, the German EntgTranspG only applies after the start of the employment relationship.
   
• Information obligations during the employment relationship (Art. 6): Employers with at least 50 employees must inform their employees, without being asked, about the criteria for determining their remuneration, their remuneration levels and their remuneration development. These criteria must be objective and gender-neutral. Member States may grant an exemption from this requirement for employers with fewer than 50 employees. In any case, this represents a significant tightening of the EntgTranspG, which only provides for a right to information upon request and in companies with at least 200 employees.
   
• Individual right to information (Art. 7): Employees have the right to request written information about their individual pay and the average pay – broken down by gender – for comparable jobs. The information must be provided within two months at the latest. This extends the existing right to information under the EntgTranspG, which was previously limited to the statistical median as the ‘comparative pay’.
   
• Extended reporting obligations (Art. 9): The directive extends the existing reporting obligations to employers with at least 100 employees. Companies must regularly report on the gender pay gap and other relevant pay information and publish this information.
   
• Joint pay assessment (Art. 10): Employers must carry out a pay assessment together with employee representatives if there is a difference of at least 5 per cent in the average pay of male and female employees in a group of employees and this is not corrected within six months. 
   
• Entitlement to damages and compensation (Art. 16): Employees who have suffered damage as a result of a violation of equal pay rights can claim damages or compensation. This includes full back pay for lost wages as well as damages for lost opportunities and immaterial damages.
   
• Reversal of the burden of proof (Art. 18): In cases of suspected pay discrimination, the employer must prove that no discrimination has taken place. This reversal of the burden of proof is already enshrined in the German AGG and is further strengthened by the Directive.
   
• Sanctions (Art. 23): Member States must establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for violations of equal pay provisions. These may include fines, for example.

Conclusion

The European EntgTranspRL represents a significant step towards promoting equal pay between men and women. It expands the existing provisions of the German EntgTranspG and brings with it new obligations and challenges for employers. Companies should use the time until the directive is implemented to prepare for the new requirements and adjust their pay structures accordingly. Existing salary structures should be reviewed for gender-neutral and objective criteria, application processes should be adapted (e.g. by standardising procedures, specific training for the HR department) and, if not already in place, a legally compliant remuneration system should be introduced.

SKW Schwarz remains one of the top law firms in the field of IT law in 2025: contracts and licences as well as data law. This renewed recognition by the renowned JUVE editorial team confirms our leading market position and the outstanding expertise of our team.

Why SKW Schwarz?

Our broad-based TMT practice is known for its comprehensive digital consulting and special expertise in digitisation projects. Companies from innovative industries regularly rely on our team for operational support, complex contract drafting and comprehensive regulatory advice.

We are also in high demand in the areas of e-commerce, IT security and data protection law – including acting as external data protection officers – as well as in industry-specific court and administrative proceedings. Our junior lawyers also set the tone in platform regulation, AI and fintech companies, and at the interface with influencer marketing.

Personally recommended lawyers

We are particularly pleased about the personal recommendations from our colleagues:

• Martin Schweinoch (‘very experienced, outstanding quality’)
• Dr. Matthias Orthwein (‘exceptional expertise in the field of IT projects’)
• Dr. Matthias Nordmann (‘very accomplished, one of the few tech specialists at the interface with M&A’)

We would like to thank our entire team for their great commitment and our clients for the trust they have placed in us. Together, we are shaping the digital future.

Open questions following its entry into force on 28 June 2025

The German Accessibility Act (Barrierefreiheitsstärkungsgesetz - BFSG) has been in force since 28 June 2025 and requires many companies to make their products and services accessible. The extensive obligations for interactive electronic products and online shops, among other things, regularly lead to a comprehensive need for adaptation. Particularly problematic is the fact that there is still considerable uncertainty about the need for implementation and the scope of implementation – for example, with regard to market surveillance, the definition of e-commerce services, information obligations and applicable technical standards.

Digital transformation without barriers: Who is affected and what does the law require?

With the BFSG, Germany is implementing the European Accessibility Act (EAA) and obliging companies to offer certain products and services in an accessible manner. The aim is to enable people with disabilities to participate equally in digital life. The regulations affect manufacturers, distributors, importers and service providers who offer their products and services to consumers.

The scope of application covers, in particular, general purpose computer hardware systems, self-service terminals (e.g. ATMs, check-in machines), consumer terminal equipment with interactive computing functionality (e.g. smartphones, tablets and smart TVs), e-readers, e-books and software designed for them, telecommunications services (telephony, messenger services), banking services, elements of passenger transport services (e.g. websites, apps, electronic ticketing services), and – particularly relevant – all services in e-commerce, especially web shops and certain apps for consumers.

The products and services concerned must be designed in such a way that they meet the accessibility requirements set out in the BFSG and the associated regulation (BFSGV). Companies also have assessment, verification and notification obligations, for example with regard to technical documentation, CE marking, declarations of conformity and accessible information about their offers.

Grey areas and hurdles: Where the BFSG still leaves open questions

Legal advisory practice in recent months shows that, even six years after the adoption of the EAA, it is still not sufficiently clear to many companies which in principle consider themselves affected by the BFSG requirements whether they actually fall within the scope of application and what obligations this entails.

Firstly, it is unclear which digital offers specifically qualify as ‘e-commerce services’. According to the BFSG and the EAA, these are services provided at a distance, through websites and mobile device-based services by electronic means and at the individual request of a consumer with a view to concluding a consumer contract. Services, in turn, are those services that are normally provided for remuneration. This suggests that the directive primarily covers websites and apps that feature a ‘Pay now’ button at the end, especially web shops. However, this falls short, as the conclusion of the contract is often initiated much earlier, for example in a newsletter from the service provider or even on the website of a third party that earns money through affiliate links. Other services may only be offered as an ancillary service to an analogue product purchase, such as customer support websites, but are also only available digitally. It is currently difficult to draw a clear line.

Affected service providers must now make information about the implementation of the BFSG requirements accessible to the general public in an accessible form, i.e. as a rule, it must be easy to find on their website. The exact scope of the information on accessibility requirements remains unclear. While some companies point out their compliance gaps, others prefer to hold back. It is also unclear how to deal with situations where one believes that they do not fall within the scope of application. Should you publish accessibility information anyway, just to be on the safe side, especially if you believe you are in a grey area?

The implementation of accessibility requirements is supposed to be made it easier through the application of so-called harmonised European standards. So far, however, only websites and digital offers can refer to the European standard EN 301 549 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1). Incidentally, the standards are still in the process of being developed.

Help from the market surveillance authority is not to be expected, as it does not yet exist. The central market surveillance authority, the Market Surveillance Agency of the Federal States for the Accessibility of Products and Services (MLBF) in Magdeburg, should have been established long ago. As of the deadline on 28 June, it had neither been set up nor was it operational.

Act now: Practical tips for companies on the path to accessibility

Accessibility opens up new target groups for companies and is a topic of great social relevance. Voluntary efforts to achieve greater inclusion are now being complemented by considerable legal, technical and organisational challenges. Action is now needed to minimise compliance risks and avoid sanctions such as fines, bans or product recalls.

To this end, it must first be examined whether and to what extent the products and services fall under the BFSG. In particular, digital offerings, websites, apps and online shops should be reviewed. Websites often require far-reaching and labour-intensive adjustments. For BFSG-compliant information on accessibility, individual risks and requirements should be carefully classified so as not to become a target for competitors or the market surveillance authority.

Only in a few exceptional cases are transition periods likely to apply or companies likely to fall outside the scope of application. Particular caution is advised if a company operates internationally. The obligations under the EAA may vary in their national implementation in the various member states.

Conclusion

Companies should not wait for the first wave of warning letters or moves by the market surveillance authority, but should take action now. Early legal analysis and legally compliant implementation of the BFSG requirements are crucial to avoid fines, warnings and reputational damage – while at the same time taking advantage of the opportunities offered by an inclusive digital society.

Aachen Regional Court & Cologne Higher Regional Court take on central role in freight, forwarding and warehousing transactions – What you need to know now:

A significant change in the German court system is imminent, which will have a direct impact on all companies involved in transport, forwarding and warehousing transactions, especially in North Rhine-Westphalia. The ‘Second Ordinance Amending the Ordinance on Jurisdiction of 3 June 2025’ will come into force on 1 July 2025 and will lead to a significant centralisation of certain judicial competences in our federal state. The aim of this reform is to pool expertise in the courts and increase efficiency in complex areas of law.

What does this mean in concrete terms for the transport industry?

The ordinance creates special, exclusive jurisdictions for transport law disputes in North Rhine-Westphalia:

1. First instance jurisdiction: The Aachen Regional Court becomes the central point of contact

From the effective date, the Aachen Regional Court will have exclusive jurisdiction for all lawsuits relating to claims arising from the transport of goods by road and rail, as well as freight forwarding and warehousing transactions in connection with such transport, which are handled by the courts in North Rhine-Westphalia. This also applies to international cross-border transport.

• What does this cover? In addition to the aforementioned domestic German constellations, this includes, in particular, cases falling within the scope of the CMR Convention (i.e. international road transport) and international rail transport in accordance with the CIM regulations within the framework of the COTIF Convention. In practical terms, this means that, for example, freight claims or claims for damages arising from these national and international goods transports, for which various regional courts in North Rhine-Westphalia may have been responsible in the past, will now be heard collectively in Aachen.
   
• Important distinction: Goods transport by water (sea and inland waterways) and air freight transport remain excluded from this centralisation. These continue to follow their specific rules of jurisdiction.

2. Second instance jurisdiction: The Higher Regional Court of Cologne for appeals and complaints

When it comes to appeals or complaints in disputes arising from freight, forwarding and warehousing transactions, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne will be responsible for the whole of North Rhine-Westphalia from 1 July 2025. This therefore affects the next instance for a wide range of transport law disputes in the state.

Impact on your jurisdiction clauses in general terms and conditions and contracts

The jurisdictions created by this regulation are mandatory and exclusive. This is a critical point for many companies:

• No more free choice within North Rhine-Westphalia: This means that you and your contractual partners will no longer be free to choose another place of jurisdiction or venue within North Rhine-Westphalia through general terms and conditions (including the ADSp) or individual agreements if the case falls under the new jurisdiction rules. Clauses in your existing general terms and conditions that, for example, specify a different place of jurisdiction in North Rhine-Westphalia are likely to be invalid for the cases concerned from 1 July 2025.
   
• Choice of external places of jurisdiction remains unchanged: The good news is that the option of agreeing on a place of jurisdiction in another federal state (e.g. Hamburg) or using additional places of jurisdiction under international agreements such as the CMR remains fundamentally unaffected. However, this only applies if these places of jurisdiction are outside the now exclusive jurisdictions in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Recommended action and next steps

These changes require your immediate attention. Please note that proceedings already pending before 1 July 2025 will continue to be subject to the previous jurisdiction. However, the utmost care is required for all new cases.

We strongly recommend that you:

• Review your internal processes: Ensure that your employees who deal with lawsuits or legal remedies are informed about the new jurisdictions.
   
• Review your terms and conditions: Have your general terms and conditions of transport and sample contracts reviewed for any necessary adjustments to the jurisdiction clauses. 

Given the significance of these changes and the need to quickly establish specialised jurisdiction in Aachen, we are happy to provide you with comprehensive advice. Let us discuss together which strategy is best for your company to optimally adapt to the new situation.

SKW Schwarz, a leading law firm in the field of intellectual property and IP law, is delighted to have once again been recognised in the IP Stars Rankings 2025. These rankings are an important indicator of the firm's outstanding expertise in the field of IP.

Law Firm Ranking 2025

In the ‘Trade mark – law firms’ category, SKW Schwarz maintained its Tier 2 ranking.

Trade Mark Stars 2025

Dr. Dorothee Altenburg, Dr. Markus Brock, Margret Knitter, Dr. Rembert Niebel and Dr. Oliver Stöckel were named “Trade Mark Stars 2025.” This underscores the recognised expertise of these attorneys and SKW Schwarz’s position as a reliable partner in trademark law matters.

The IP Stars rankings and the associated Managing IP Awards are recognised worldwide as the gold standard for recognition of excellence in the IP legal industry. The jury's decision is based on extensive interviews, email and online surveys of thousands of law firms, IP lawyers and clients.

SKW Schwarz has established itself as one of the leading law firms in the field of IP. These latest recognitions in the IP Stars Rankings 2025 underscore the firm's position and its ongoing dedication to protecting and defending the interests of its clients.

We are proud of our team's achievements and thank our clients for their continued trust.

SKW Schwarz has secured the services of renowned labour law expert Stephan Altenburg. The namesake partner and founder of the law firm ALTENBURG Fachanwälte für Arbeitsrecht will join SKW Schwarz in Munich as a partner on 1 July 2025 – the law firm where he originally began his career.

“Stephan Altenburg is one of the most recognised experts in employer consulting in Germany. For many decades, he has enjoyed the trust of renowned clients, who regularly consult him on a wide range of controversial issues in everyday business life,” says Dr. Stephan Morsch, Managing Partner of SKW Schwarz. ‘Executive boards and supervisory boards of listed companies also regularly seek his advice. With Stephan Altenburg, we are taking a major step forward in our efforts to strengthen and expand our employment law practice nationwide. We are delighted to be able to give our employment law team even more weight and visibility with him on board.’

After starting his career at SKW Schwarz in 1995 and spending several years practising law at Heuking, Stephan Altenburg founded the boutique firm ALTENBURG Fachanwälte für Arbeitsrecht in 2009. In 2012, he launched the international labour law network ELLINT: Employment & Labour Lawyers International, whose board he served on until 2024. Since 2016, he has also been a lecturer in employment law at Fresenius University of Applied Sciences and the author of numerous publications.

Stephan Altenburg is a member of the German Labour Court Association, the Labour Law Working Group of the German Bar Association, the German Lawyers' Association, the German Media Law Association and the Federal Association for Repositioning, Restructuring and Interim Management. He has been listed in all recognised lawyer rankings for many years.