Legally Safe Marketing

(1)

Legally Safe E-Mail Marketing

Guidelines for Sending E-Mail Advertising in Germany

Version: December 2014

Authors:

Peter Huppertz, LL.M., Partner and Certified Information Technology Lawyer, Hoffmann Liebs Fritsch & Partner

(2)

“They watch your back.”

Disclaimer: The explanations in these Guidelines are intended only to provide a general overview and do not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein cannot take into account the special features of a given situation or replace the need to obtain specific legal advice.

(3)

3

I. Introduction

E-mail marketing has developed into a major component of every large-scale marketing strategy. However, com-prehensive legal requirements must be considered in this area. The goal of these Guidelines is to explain these requirements and make you familiar with the key legal bases of e-mail marketing. In this way, we would like to provide you practical guidelines to help you to plan your e-mailings in a legally safe fashion.

1. Legal Foundations

E-mail advertising is essentially regulated in the German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz; BDSG), the German Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb; UWG) and the German Telemedia Act (Telemediengesetz; TMG).

The most important and practical regulations for e-mail marketing arise from competition law. In accordance with § 7(2) no. 3 of the Unfair Competition Act, the sending of e-mail advertising without prior “express” consent of the recipient constitutes a competitive violation in the form of an “unconscionable pestering”. This provision lays out the strict requirements defining the bounds of permissibility of e-mail marketing more than any other regulations.

“Express” consent prescribed by competition law

(4)

4

The sending of e-mail advertising is considered as a unique telemedia service in the terms of the Telemedia Act. If the consent to send e-mails is obtained online, the sender must therefore assure pursuant to § 13(2) of the Telemedia Act that:

• the recipient is aware of and has clearly issued his or her consent;

• the consent is recorded;

• the recipient can retrieve the content of the consent at any time; and

• the recipient can revoke the consent at any time with future effect.

First, it must be observed that legally valid consents are obtained for e-mails to be sent. Completely irrespective of whether an advertising e-mail exists or not, the recipient is entitled to defend his or her rights with respect to undesired e-mail (analogous application of § 823(1) as related to § 1004(1) of the Civil Code). The recipient can

thus contact the sender and demand that the sender desists from e-mailings in the future.1

2. Potential Sanctions

To commit a legal violation by sending e-mail advertising, it is in principle sufficient to send a single undesired e-mail. In particular, the sender of an unrequested advertising e-mail is then subject to the following:

• warning by the recipient

– compensation of the lawyers‘ fees of the recipient

– issuance of a desistance undertaking with the obligation to pay a contractual penalty in

the case of a repeated infringement

• warning by competitors or other institutions with authority to sue in accordance with the Unfair Competition Act

– compensation of the lawyers‘ fees of the party issuing the warning

– issuance of a desistance undertaking with the obligation to pay a contractual

penalty in the case of a repeated infringement

• fines in an amount of up to EUR 300,000.00 due to breach of data protection or telemedia law (administrative offense)

• damage to reputation, if it is generally recognized that unrequested e-mail advertising has been sent to a recipient (“spam”)

• customer satisfaction directly in relation to the affected recipient

1_{Higher Regional Court of Naumburg, Judgment of 22 December 2006, Case 10 U 60/06.}

Additional requirements based on telemedia law

Cease and desist claim of recipient

One-time dispatch of unrequested advertising sufficient

(5)

5

II. Affected E-Mails

Encompassed by the generally applicable duty to obtain consent in competition law are only e-mails which are “advertising” e-mails. The term “advertising” is defined in Article 2 lit. a of the underlying Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and is very broadly interpreted by legal rulings. Accordingly, “advertising” is to be construed as any statement made with the aim of promoting the sale of goods or services. It does not fall under the term “advertising” when messages are sent merely to settle an already existing contractu-al relation. Accordingly, orders, confirmation of shipping and notices based on legcontractu-al obligations and the fulfillment of claims to information on the part of the recipient are exempt from consent. However, corporate newsletters count as e-mail advertising that is subject to consent, because such newsletters are normally undoubtedly inten-ded to promote sales. This applies in principle to so-called “query advertising,” i.e. when indirect sales advertising is conducted with the recipient by making a query about a specific product.2

2_{Federal Supreme Court, Ruling of 17 July 2008, Case I ZR 75/06 – Faxanfrage im Autohandel; Ruling of 17 July 2008, Case I ZR 197/05 – FC Troschenreuth.}

Relevant: the term “advertising”

(6)

6

III. Consent

1. Basic Consent Requirements

Irrespective of whether the e-mail advertising is sent to consumers (B2C) or business people (B2B), “express““consent must always exist in advance for the affected e-mails. This makes it clear that implicit or presumed consent is not enough.

The now prevailing opinion is that it is impermissible to obtain the consent of the recipient using the so-called “opt-out method.” In this procedure, the recipient is merely given the opportunity in connection with the inputting of his or her e-mail address to opt out by placing a “check” in a box indicating that he or she does not want to receive any advertising per e-mail. Legal rulings instead demand the use of the so-called “opt-in method”, in which the recipient actively places a check in a box, thus expressly declaring his or her approval to receive e-mail advertising.

Express consent necessary for the specific case

Opt-out method is not permissible! Therefore, only use opt-in method!

(7)

7

The confirmation of the receipt of e-mail advertising and the request to issue a corresponding declaration must be clearly highlighted and issued separately, i.e. not in relation to other declarations. A valid consent declaration can therefore not be obtained by merely placing it in general terms and conditions. If the consent is to be ob-tained online simultaneously to an order, it is therefore recommendable that the necessary checkbox be placed near to the final order button. The consent should otherwise be clearly formulated and clearly define the type of

e-mail advertising encompassed. This also applies to the frequency with which e-mail advertising is to be sent.3

Finally, the recipient must be able to revoke his or her consent at any time with future effect. For this reason, by ope-ration of law, the recipient must be informed about his or her revocation right (§ 13(2) no. 4 and (3)1 of the Telemedia Act). The consent should therefore also contain a corresponding briefing about the possibility to opt out of receiving the e-mail advertising.

Subject to embedding in the relevant website or order procedure, a practical consent declaration might look as follows:

2. Verifiability of Consent: “Double Opt-In”

The sender bears the full burden of proving that a legally valid consent exists in accordance with the criteria described above. Hence, it is up to the sender to take the necessary measures in order to be able to prove the consent in the event of dispute. Problematic in particular are cases in which third-party e-mail addresses have been mistakenly or maliciously entered on a website. The consent should therefore generally be obtained only by way of the so-called “double-opt-in method”. This has been the only practical procedure that has been approved to date by legal literature and lower court rulings for this purpose and recognized as permissible.4

3_{Federal Supreme Court, Ruling of 10 February 2011, Case I ZR 164/09.}

4_{District Court of Essen, Judgment of 20 April 2009, Case 4 O 368/08; District Court of Berlin, Judgment of 23 January 2007, Case 15 O 346/06.}

“Yes, I consent to receive a newsletter from [ABC GmbH] on […] by e-mail [once a month] and for [ABC GmbH] to use the data provided by me for this purpose. I can unsubscribe from this newsletter at any time, without incurring any costs other than basic transmission charges, for instance, by sending an e-mail to [[email protected]]. The e-mails will then be immediately discontinued.”

Formulate consent clearly. Do not integrate consent into general terms and conditions of business, but place it new the order button

Refer to the possiblity to unsubscri-be at any time

Sample consent declaration on a website

(8)

8

The double-opt-in method for e-mail-advertising has the following features:

• possibility to enter an e-mail address on the website of the sender

• verification of the orderer by sending a so-called “check mail” to the entered e-mail address with

a link for confirmation of the registration

• sending of the e-mail-advertising only through consent of the orderer by check mail

Precisely for the problem cases described above, the double opt-in method is viewed as the only possibility of the sender to document the identity of the orderer in a legally safe fashion by electronic means. Only with the aid of the check mail can the sender furnish corresponding proof in a case of doubt.

A recent judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Munich5_{has caused an uproar, because it deems the}

above-described double opt-in method to be inadmissible. While the decision initially called into question the entire practice of sending e-mail advertising, the decision must be considered very critically overall. In light of the con-cerns against the judgment expressed in the literature, there is good reason to nonetheless continue to adhere to the double opt-in procedure in the future. When using this method, however, additional prerequisites should be observed so as to clearly distinguish oneself from the Munich scenario. It is crucial to be able to prove where the e-mail address came from and to neatly document the original registration. Hence, special attention should be paid to the aforementioned requirements in § 13(2) of the Telemedia Act (see page 4 above).

Moreover, the check mail must be kept very simple and may only display the most rudimentary content. Cor-porate design elements should not be used, if feasible. At best, the check mail should even be sent in plain text format.

Information about the type and frequency of the advertising and the briefing on the possibility to unsubscribe should be repeated in the check mail, however. The time of the confirmation and the content of the specific con-firmation e-mail should then be recorded, just as for the original registration. Here, too, it must be assured that the log file is stored in a usable format.

5_{Higher Regional Court of Munich, Judgment of 27 September 2012, Case 29 O 1682/12.}

Advertising e-mails may only be sent after a “double opt-in” (confir-mation by check mail)

Additional requirements according to the judgment of the Higher Regi-onal Court of Munich

Check mail should be free of adver-tising, sent only in plain text format and repeating the consent declarati-on, documenting the confirmation

(9)

9

We have summarized the key steps that absolutely have to be observed in light of the new legal rulings in a check list below (see page 17).

(10)

10

3. Exemptions from the Consent Requirement within Existing Business Relations

The requirement for express consent can only be foregone in specific cases under very special circumstances. § 7(3) of the Unfair Competition Act stipulates in this regard a special exemption for e-mail advertising within exis-ting business relations. Under the following prerequisites, e-mail markeexis-ting is therefore possible even without express consent via the opt-in method:

• The sender has obtained the e-mail address of the recipient in connection with the sale of a good or service.

• The sender uses the address for direct advertising for its own similar goods or services. • The recipient has not objected to the use.

• The recipient has been clearly and unequivocally advised, when the address is recorded and each time it is

used, that the recipient can object to such use at any time, without costs arising by virtue thereof, other than transmission costs pursuant to the basic rates.

This exemption is dealt with very strictly by the courts, however, so that recourse should only be made to the exemption in specific cases when the above prerequisites can be affirmed with certainty or corresponding legal advice has been obtained. It is important that the recipient must have specified the e-mail address him- or herself during the order process and that goods and services are being ordered subject to charges. The use of a good or service free of charge is not enough. Further, it must be assured that an order actually exists, because the provisi-on evidently aims at “existing customers”. Recourse to the exemptiprovisi-on can therefore be ruled out if a recipient has provided an e-mail address when ordering but then cancels the order. Nor may e-mail addresses be forwarded and used within a corporate group for this purpose.

One special restriction on this exemption is that the e-mail advertising sent as a result may only be sent for “similar goods and services”. This can be assessed based on the orders placed, i.e. in view of the goods and services already acquired by the recipient. The good or service newly advertised with the e-mail must consequently have the same purpose of application for the recipient. In this way, the sender is permitted, for example, to advertise trips to destinations different from the one the recipient previously booked with the sender. In contrast, any per-son who has only concluded with his or her customer a contract regarding telephone services may not advertise telephone systems or other technical devices. It remains unclear to date whether advertising may be conducted for accessories and add-ons to the originally acquired product or whether the newly acquired goods must actually be interchangeable with the old goods.

By way of exception, the opt-in method can be forgone within the framework of existing business relations.

The individual prerequisites are very strict and are subject to a num-ber of restrictions.

Only similar goods and services may be advertised on this basis.

(11)

11

If the prerequisites for the exemption can be affirmed with certainty, the otherwise necessary opt-in procedure no lon-ger applies. However, the recipient must be instructed about his or her revocation right at any time. This is practically equivalent to an opt-out solution. Within the framework of an online order procedure, this can likewise be implemen-ted with the example discussed on page 7. The only difference is that the consent box may be pre-checked in this case.

4. Special Problem: Recommendations

The product pages of online shops frequently contain a recommendation function, i.e. the opportunity to recom-mend the relevant product by clicking a button. After the website user inputs an e-mail address and an accom-panying text, the website operator then sends an e-mail to the specified recipient. This recommendation function is also known by the term “tell-a-friend” advertising. Sending e-mails in this fashion represents a special case in e-mail marketing which entails its own legal difficulties.

In a recent ruling of the Federal Supreme Court, e-mails sent by way of such a recommendation function were generally classified as unrequested advertising in the terms of § 7(2) no. 3 of the Unfair Competition

Act.6_{Notable in this regard is that even the provider of the function (i.e. the website operator) is}

respon-sible for this. In light of the recent high court rulings, recommendation functions on websites can current-ly not be used safecurrent-ly in legal terms. As a result of the special features of the state of affairs decided by the Federal Supreme Court (mass-mailing of recommendations with the website operator as the sender), a cer-tain degree of leeway exists for the future with respect to the general admissibility of recommendation func-tions. Any person who is unable to refrain from a recommendation function despite the legal rulings and ac-cepts the associated risks must be urgently advised to delimit him- or herself from the circumstances decided by the Federal Supreme Court as far as possible. Based on the previously discussed special features of that case, the following items should therefore absolutely be taken into consideration when setting up this function:

• The recommending website user must provide his or her own e-mail address and appear as the sender in the

recommendation e-mail.

• A blacklist with blocked e-mail addresses must be kept, to which no recommendation e-mails can be sent.

• Mass e-mailing of recommendations must be technically restricted.

• The recommendation e-mail cannot contain any additional advertising, i.e. no advertising beyond what the

recommending website user substantively associates with a specific product recommendation he or she has made (e.g. additional promotions for the recommended product or advertising for non-recommended products).

6_{Federal Supreme Court, Ruling of 12 September 2013, Case I ZR 208/12 – Empfehlungs-E-Mail.}

Implementation through an opt-out

“Tell-a-friend” advertising on websi-tes entails special problems.

Federal Supreme Court principle: e-mail recommendation = unreqeus-ted advertising by website operator

Compulsory measures for using a recommendation function in compli-ance with the law

(12)

12

In order to further minimize the risks, the following measures are moreover recommendable:

• The recommending website user should formulate the subject line and the text of the recommendation e-mail

his- or herself at best but may at least be able to make changes.

• The e-mail address of the recommending website user should also be entered as a reply address.

• All incentives for the recommending website user to send a recommendation e-mail should be avoided.

• With respect to the recommendation, the e-mail address of the recommending website user and the date of the

recommendation should be recorded.

“If it makes sense, they also go

to work very discreetly.”

Further measures to reduce existing risk

(13)

13

IV. Further Requirements

As a supplement, we will summarize at this point a few additional requirements, which must be observed beyond obtaining the necessary consent:

Required Fields When Registering

Because sending e-mail advertising constitutes a unique telemedia service, the recipient must be able to use the service in an anonymous way (§ 13(6) of the Telemedia Act). In addition, the general precept of data economy is applicable (§ 3a of the Federal Data Protection Act). As a practical consequence, only an e-mail address may be requested to send e-mail advertising. Additional information such as the last and first names must remain optional.

Data Protection Declaration

A website operator must inform users of the website generally of the type, scope and purpose of personal data collected and used (§ 13(1) of the Telemedia Act). Accordingly, recipient must either be informed directly during the registration about the use of his or her data through a text or the privacy policy on the website must be adapted accordingly.

A data protection declaration might read as follows:

“Newsletter: If you would like to receive from us by e-mail current information and discussions about our current goods and services („newsletter“), in addition to your e-mail address we require a confirmation that you are the owner of the specified e-mail address and consent to the receipt of the newsletter. These data will only be collected to send you the newsletter and to document our entitlement to do so. The provision of any information in addition to your e-mail address (e.g. first and last name) when registering for the newsletter is of a voluntary nature. These data will exclusively be used to personalize the newsletter. You may revoke your subscription to the newsletter and the consent you give during registration concerning the storage of your e-mail address for this purpose at any time with future effect e.g. by sending an e-mail to the address: [[email protected]].”

The only information that may be required during registration is the e-mail address.

Amendment of the privacy polivy required

(14)

14

Validity of Consent

When using an express consent declaration of the recipient, the period of validity must also be observed. No uniform legal rulings have been established in this regard. Some recognize that if an e-mail address is not used, the consent loses effect within one and a half years.7

Recording Duty

The consent must be recorded for reasons of data protection law (§ 13(2)2 of the Telemedia Act). For this purpose, the time and IP address must be recorded. It must also be assured that the corresponding log file is saved in a usable format. This depends above all on the claim to information of the affected recipient in data protection law. It must be comprehensible for the recipient under what circumstances and when his or her e-mail address was registered for the newsletter.

Co-Sponsoring

A further crucial point is co-sponsoring, i.e. when the consent declaration is extended to third parties, so that further enterprises may send their own e-mail advertising to the recipient. Because the consent declaration of the recipient can only be issued for a specific case, it is critical that all relevant enterprises are specified concretely by name. In this context, it is recognized as a general guideline that the number of participating enterprises should be restricted to a maximum of 10. This limit must be observed above all when one enterprise is merely participating in the co-sponsoring and the consent is being obtained by another enterprise.

7_{District Court of Berlin, Judgment of 9 December 2011, Case 15 O 343/11; see also Düsseldorfer Kreis, Anwendungshinweise der Datenschutzaufsichtsbehörden}

zur Erhebung, Verarbeitung und Nutzung von personenbezogener Daten für werbliche Zwecke, December 2013, p. 4, with reference to the District Court of Munich I, Judgment of 8 April 2010, Case 17 HK O 138/10 (17 months).

The validity of the consent is limited if not used.

Recording opt-in

Co-sponsoring should only be undertaken within narrow limits (limit: 10 participants)

(15)

15

V. Design of E-Mail Advertising

In theory, a number of legal violations can be committed through the content of an advertising e-mail. In practice, this depends highly on the specific case. Therefore, only the general prerequisites for the design of e-mail adver-tising can be discussed at this point:

1. Minimum Substantive Standards

The commercial nature of the message may not be concealed or hidden through the subject line or specified sender (§ 6(2) of the Telemedia Act). The subject line must therefore be selected so that it cannot cause any misconception about the advertising nature of the e-mail and is consistent with the further content of the message. Brief and concise information is recommended that will not be blocked by a spam filter. Irrespective of potential further information regarding the sender in the advertising e-mail itself, the sender should be selected so as to be clearly identifiable for the recipient. It is expedient here to use concrete names, company designations and any trademarks and domains protected for the sender.

Because the sending of e-mail advertising is classified as a telemedia service, the requirement pursuant to § 5(1) of the Telemedia Act to identify the provider is applicable. Hence, the e-mail advertising must contain an imprint with the following minimum information:

• name of sender • legal form

• authorized persons

• postal address (with street, building number, postal code and city) • e-mail address

• further possibilities to establish direct contact (phone or fax number or contact form)

• information on the competent supervisory authority

• registration court • registration number

• value-added-tax ID number or business identification number

For this purpose, a link may be provided in the e-mail to an existing imprint on a website, for instance. Ideally, the imprint should be reachable with one click, at maximum however with no more than one additional interim click (“Two-Click Rule”).8

8_{Federal Supreme Court, Ruling of 20 July 2006, Case I ZR 228/03 – Anbieterkennzeichnung im Internet.}

Select brief and concise information in the subject line and clearly name the sender

Mindestangaben im Impressum

A link to a website is sufficient for the imprint-related information.

(16)

16

Please note that the required information can vary depending on the specific case and the corporate form of the user. In the case of e-mail advertising in the form of an edited newsletter, the name and address of a responsible person must be specified (§ 55(2) of the German Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (RStV)). Like the other required information, this information must also be easily identifiable, directly reachable, and continuously available. Parallel to the imprint, various information requirements in commercial and corporate law must be fulfilled

in business letters. In accordance with the legislative reform of German commercial and other registers9_{, it}

is clear that e-mails may also be classified as business letters. This affects merchants, general partnerships (OHG), limited partnerships (KG), professional partnerships (Partnerschaftsgesellschaft), limited liability

com-panies (GmbH), joint stock corporations (AG) and cooperatives (Genossenschaft).10_{The required information}

can vary depending on the corporate form. However, it generally encompasses the following:

• information on the legal form • company registered office • registration court

• registration number

• names of managing directors and management and supervisory board members

Whether a link to existing information on a website is sufficient for the corresponding required information has not been definitively clarified. It is therefore recommended to integrate the information required in commercial and corporate law directly into the advertising e-mail.

2. Unsubscribing

Before the registration, reference must be made to the possibility to unsubscribe. It can moreover be derived from the legal regulations that the unsubscribe option must be placed in each advertising e-mail (§ 7(2)4 of the Unfair Competi-tion Act, § 28(4) of the Federal Data ProtecCompeti-tion Act)11_{. When designing the unsubscribe option in the advertising e-mail,}

a simple and comfortable variant should be chosen for the recipient. Expedient for this purpose is an unsubscribe link, which registers the cancellation and displays a webpage with a confirmation notice. Alternatively, an e-mail address can be provided, which registers the cancellation after receiving an e-mail from the recipient address. In all cases, ad-ditional steps should not be integrated into the procedure for unsubscribing.

9_{Act on the Electronic Commercial, Cooperative and Business Registers (Gesetz über elektronische Handelsregister and Genossenschaftsregister sowie das}

Unternehmensregister, EHUG), which largely took force on 1 January 2007.

10_{The information requirements result in paticular from the following regulations: §§ 37a, 125a, 177a of the Commercial Code, § 7(5) of the Professional}

Partnership Act, § 35a(1) of the Limited Liability Act, § 80(1) of the Corporation Act and § 25a of the Cooperatives Act.

11_{In accordance with § 7(2)4 of the Unfair Competition Act, a message without a valid address to unsubscribe constitutes an independent competitive violation}

in the terms of an unconscionable pestering.

In the case of e-mail advertising in the form of an edited newsletter, a responsible person must be named.

Integrate mandatory information re-quired by commercial and corporate law directly in e-mail

Reference to option to unsubscribe not only before registration but in each individual advertising e-mail (e.g. as a link or e-mail address)

(17)

17

An express registration must exist from the orderer; pre-checked check boxes or the like should not be used. The orderer must be sufficiently informed about the potential content and frequency of the advertising to which the orderer subscribes by specifying his or her e-mail address.

The orderer must be instructed about his or her option to revoke the subscription to the advertising. The date and IP address of the entry must be recorded. It must be assured that the corresponding log file is stored in a usable format.

Only the e-mail address may be labeled as a required field.

The data protection declaration of the website must be adjusted accordingly (indicating the collection and storage of the personal data specified above).

VI. Check Lists

1. Double Opt-In

Broken down by phases of the necessary double opt-in procedure, the following must be warranted for each recipient:

Registration Process on the Website

Content of the Check Mail

The check mail must contain a link for the confirmation of the registration.

Information on the type and frequency of the advertising and the notice on the revocation right must be

repeated in the e-mail (see above).

The check mail may not contain any advertising. One should also refrain from using corporate-design

(18)

18

Completion of the Registration Procedure

2. Design of the E-Mail Advertising

With respect to the substantive design of e-mail advertising, the following items are critical in order to warrant e-mail marketing in conformance with the law:

Advertising e-mails may only be sent after confirmation of the link in the check mail.

The date of the confirmation must be recorded as must the content of the individual confirmation e-mail.

Here, too, it must be assured that the log file is stored in a usable format.

The subject line must not conceal the nature of the e-mail as advertising and must correspond

substan-tively to the body of the message.

The sender must be clearly identifiable and allocable to the sender company.

The necessary imprint must be contained in the advertising e-mail or linked from there.

The information required in commercial and corporate law must be contained directly in the advertising e-mail.

The advertising e-mail must provide a simple unsubscribe option (link or e-mail address).

It must be assured that this unsubscribe option works and that the unsubscribed recipient does not receive

(19)

19

Hoffmann Liebs Fritsch & Partner specializes in advising commercial clients and possesses a top-flight team

of experts with many years of experience in IT law. Proof of this is the firm‘s receipt of the 2004 “Mid-Sized Law Firm of the Year” Award, which we received from the renowned JUVE Publishing House as a result of a national survey of over 1,500 clients and lawyers, and our re-nomination for the prize in 2009. The mid-sized scale of the firm enables us to provide rapid and flexible advice to businesses at attractive conditions.

www.hlfp.de

“They have the necessary bite in all

relevant fields of law.”

(20)

20

About the Authors:

Peter Huppertz is a Certified Information Technology Lawyer and has been dealing with information technology

and e-commerce issues since 1998. Peter Huppertz publishes regularly and appears as a guest speaker at spe-cialist conferences. He is also appointed as spespe-cialist legal advisor on IT law for the TÜV Akademie Rheinland/ Brandenburg and is a lecturer for the training of certified IT lawyers at the Deutsche Anwalt Akademie. He is also member of the Board of the International Technology Law Association (ITechLaw) and member of the Information Law Committee of the German Bar Association.

Dr. Mathias Schneider is an attorney specialized in IT law and data protection. He advises businesses on a wide

range of software issues, IT outsourcing and data privacy law. His dissertation dealt in depth with the legal issues associated with virtual worlds. Dr. Schneider also regularly publishes contributions on IT law and lectures in the field.

Dr. Mathias Schneider Tel. +49 211 51882-197 Fax +49 211 51882-220 [email protected] Peter Huppertz, LL.M. Tel. +49 211 51882-197 Fax +49 211 51882-220 [email protected] Impress / Disclaimer © Hoffmann Liebs Fritsch & Partner

Responsible person in the meaning of § 55 RStV (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag): Claus Eßers, Hoffmann Liebs Fritsch & Partner, Kaiserswerther Straße 119, 40474 Düsseldorf, [email protected], Tel. +49 211 51882-149, Fax +49 211 51882-270, VAT No. DE 199552042

The explanations in these Guidelines are intended only to provide a general overviews and do not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein cannot take into account the special features of a given situation or replace the need to obtain specific legal advice.

(21)

Hoffmann Liebs Fritsch & Partner Rechtsanwälte Kaiserswerther Straße 119 40474 Düsseldorf Germany Phone +49 (0) 211 - 51 88 2-0 Fax +49 (0) 211 - 51 88 2-100 E-Mail [email protected] www.hlfp.de