Column

Welcome to the parallel universe of Axel Springer, where ad blocking is an infringement of…

Enrique Dans

Summary: Back in 2015, several German newspaper publishers joined forces and sued Eye/o, the company that created Adblock Plus, claiming it interfered with their business model and was therefore engaged in anti-competitive behavior. Of course, the lawsuit was soon settled, and in Eye/o’s favor: the courts stated in no uncertain terms that blocking advertising on a ...

Back in 2015, several German newspaper publishers joined forces and sued Eye/o, the company that created Adblock Plus, claiming it interfered with their business model and was therefore engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

Of course, the lawsuit was soon settled, and in Eye/o’s favor: the courts stated in no uncertain terms that blocking advertising on a computer was perfectly legal, and that users should be able to control their own screen by blocking annoying ads and protect their privacy. Basically, no company should have the right to prohibit users from configuring their own browsers as they please.

Even so, and after such a clear and forceful ruling, one German publisher in particular, Axel Springer, sued Eye/o again, this time based on arguments that defy understanding: the programming of its web pages constituted a computer program to which it had exclusive rights of use, and that the ad blocker’s influence on these data structures was therefore an unauthorized modification of said program.

This is next-level stupidity when it comes to interpreting intellectual property rights. Again, Axel Springer lost: in January 2022, the courts held that the publisher was not entitled to any injunctive relief because there was no…

see more https://medium.com/enrique-dans/welcome-to-the-parallel-universe-of-axel-springer-where-ad-blocking-is-an-infringement-of-56f7b9aa878b