IP | IT | Law

The topic of episode 39 of the Data Navigator Podcast is - once again - the importance of the Data Act for wind energy. Our guest is Stefan Grothe, Technical Officer at the German Wind Energy Association (BWE), the largest association in the renewable energy sector with over 17,000 members. We start with an overview of the wind energy ecosystem: Who are the typical stakeholders - from operators and managers to manufacturers and independent service providers, direct marketers and grid operators? Stefan Grothe explains why the operator structure in Germany is particularly heterogeneous - from community energy companies to large energy suppliers. One focus is on the data generated by wind turbines: Performance data, weather data, temperature, vibration monitoring and voltage data - usually as ten-minute SCADA data . What is particularly exciting is that the data flow is bidirectional - grid operators and direct marketers can also actively control turbines, for example in the event of grid bottlenecks or negative electricity prices. We discuss the new opportunities opened up by the Data Act: higher-resolution data for better condition monitoring, more precise predictions on the service life of large components and new business models for predictive maintenance. Subsystems also play an important role here - such as condition monitoring systems on gearboxes, bearings and rotor blades, whose data has often remained with the manufacturer or service provider up to now. When it comes to trade secrets and IP protection, Stefan Grothe takes a differentiated view: Reverse engineering via data analyses is conceivable in principle, but is only relevant in practice after a long period of operation, if independent service becomes possible at all. It is also clear that knowledge of the Data Act is still patchy in the industry. Finally, Stefan Grothe takes a look at the economic drivers: falling liability caps in maintenance contracts, increasing demands on electricity production costs and the growing importance of better data analyses for insurers and financiers make the Data Act strategically relevant for the industry.

This article is dedicated to the liability of influencers under the law of expression. After analysing the relevant legal provisions and case law, the authors provide recommendations for influencers and highlight the legal consequences of breaches of the (journalistic) duties of care incumbent on influencers. Influencers have become increasingly important in the public opinion discourse in recent years. Back in 2019, Rezo polarised opinion in the run-up to the European elections with his YouTube video "The destruction of the CDU". Influencer Naomi Seibt, who is considered a "Musk whisperer" and promotes far-right politics on her X account, also recently caused a stir. However, influencers are also shaping social discourse through their contributions beyond their involvement in political debates, for example on how to deal with MeToo cases. Nevertheless, there has been little discussion to date about the standards by which influencers must be measured in terms of the law of expression. Are their statements to be equated with those of private individuals, with the result that they can invoke the so-called layman's privilege? Or are influencers to be treated like traditional mass media under the law of expression, so that journalistic due diligence obligations also apply to them?

Comment on OLG Frankfurt am Main, judgement of 17 July 2025 - 16 U 80/24 In its decision, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main deals with the public dispute between two well-known influencers and the related claims for injunctive relief under competition law. At the centre of the proceedings is the question of whether derogatory public statements between influencers, in this case streamers, can give rise to claims under competition law in addition to claims under personality law and where the line between permissible expression of opinion and impermissible disparagement is to be drawn in the constellation at issue.

Update on the article "Do you hear the same?": On 9 March, GEMA and the US company Suno Inc. had their first exchange of blows at Munich Regional Court I on the question of the extent to which AI-generated music infringes the rights of authors of protected musical works.

The latest podcast with Stefan Brink and Niko Härting is about freedom of expression. Firstly, we talk (01:02) about the Distance Learning Protection Act (FernUSG). Last year, the Federal Court of Justice caused considerable unrest (judgement of 12.6.2025, ref. III ZR 109/24 7.8.2025), because some people deduced from this that each of these events required approval under the FernUSG. Now the BGH (judgement of 5 February 2026, case no. III ZR 137/25) has clarified: The FernUSG is to be interpreted by means of a teleological reduction to the effect that the teacher and the learner are only to be regarded as spatially separated and the law only applies if "no synchronous communication" takes place. Great. Next up (12:26) is the new book by Ronen Steinke, senior editor in the politics section of the Süddeutsche Zeitung. "Freedom of opinion: How the police and judiciary are restricting our fundamental right - and how we are defending it" was published at the end of February. He is concerned with the question of why the number of prosecuted expression offences in Germany has been steadily increasing since 2015 - among other things, there is a new offence of insulting politicians in Section 188 of the German Criminal Code - and what this means for our democratic community. Finally (35:40), we discuss two favourable decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court of 11 and 16 December 2025, which classified the acceptance of insults by specialist courts for so-called defamatory criticism as a violation of Article 5 of the Basic Law. So much freedom of expression was rare - so no reason to say goodbye to it after all!

Artificial intelligence (AI) that takes over purchasing in companies, autonomously monitors product stocks, researches prices and triggers orders. The proactive assistant that answers emails, manages calendars and checks in for flights. Or AI-to-AI or multi-agent systems that take over the entire checkout and where all processes on both the buyer's and seller's side run entirely within an AI interface - the use of AI agents or agentic AI promises completely new possibilities. Companies, and in particular retailers, that decide to participate in this new AI-based ecosystem must also be aware of the legal pitfalls: What are the legal rules of the game when AI suddenly negotiates and concludes contracts independently? Who is liable for what?

The "Schabowski" case of the OVG Münster is going to the Federal Administrative Court! The proceedings revolve around Günther Schabowski's famous speech at the press conference on 9 November 1989. Who did the Haus der Geschichte buy this note from? A journalist from the BILD newspaper sued the museum on the basis of the right to information under Article 5 of the German Constitution. The OVG Münster accepted such a claim, rejecting it and basing its decision on the grounds for refusal of the IFG and Art. 86 GDPR. The Haus der Geschichte is now appealing. From minute (20:39), Dr Stefan Brink and Prof Niko Härting talk about the resolution paper of the Data Protection Conference on the P20 Data House, a federal-state project on the IT infrastructure of the police. The paper criticises in particular the lack of a legal basis for the planned IT architecture. Finally, from minute 30:13 onwards, the AI tool Microsoft Copilot is discussed. Copilot is not actually allowed to access files labelled as confidential; however, such access did take place. Stefan and Niko shed light on the consequences under data protection law and finally land on the keyword of digital sovereignty.

Starting at minute 01:41, Dr Stefan Brink and Carl Nowak talk about the unsuccessful attempts of a journalist to obtain the Kohl files, which are in the possession of the widow Maike Kohl-Richter. Unfortunately, it is almost a habit in Germany for outgoing members of government to take files home instead of handing them over to the Federal Archives. Does the Freedom of Information Act impose an obligation on public authorities to retrieve "lost" files? Afterwards (14:14), Stefan and Carl talk about an increase in data protection submissions from 2024 to 2025 to the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and the Lower Saxony State Data Protection Commissioner. What could be the causes? Finally, from minute (30:00) onwards, an ECJ ruling from 29 January C-291/24 on the EU Money Laundering Directive is discussed. This concerned the legal requirements in Austrian law regarding the liability of a legal entity for compliance violations. What does this decision have to do with data protection?