Gaming & E-Sport

An analysis of the Covid-19 support schemes is now making it increasingly clear that many of the demands for repayment are not simply a reflection of sound budgetary management, but the result of legally questionable tightening of the rules, unclear decisions and hastily conducted mass proceedings. Courts in North Rhine-Westphalia and Baden-Württemberg have set clear limits for the authorities. Whilst other federal states are responding politically to this development, Berlin has so far stuck to a hardline and non-transparent approach.

Proxy advisers influence the decisions of numerous shareholders every year. Until now, however, it has largely gone unnoticed when these same firms have also advised listed companies. That is now set to change. The Federal Council is proposing new transparency requirements in the Swiss Code of Obligations to disclose potential conflicts of interest and strengthen confidence in general meetings.

In episode 47 of the Data Navigator podcast, Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Dr Hubertus von Rönne address a topic that, since the Data Act came into force, has repeatedly been cited as a supposed counter-argument against claims for the disclosure of data: the GDPR. One of the reasons for this discussion is the third think tank organised by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information on the Data Act, which took place last week. The starting point is clear: the Data Act expressly applies to personal data as well. In the event of a conflict, the GDPR takes precedence. In practice, however, such conflicts arise far less frequently than is often assumed. The decisive factor here is what is known as ‘relative personal reference’. Whether data is personal is not assessed in the abstract, but from the perspective of the respective data controller. Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Dr Hubertus von Rönne illustrate this principle using the example of a bus driver: for Berlin’s public transport authority, driver data is personally identifiable, as they know who was driving which bus at what time. For the bus manufacturer, which only receives vehicle data without any personal registration details, this link is generally missing. In the case of a wind farm, the situation may be the reverse: the manufacturer knows its maintenance staff, whilst the wind farm operator is usually unable to identify them. It follows that: The same data set may be personal data for one party and not for another. In scenarios governed by the Data Act, it is often precisely the data recipient who cannot establish a link to an individual. If, however, the recipient does establish a link to an individual, they require a legal basis under the GDPR. Legitimate interests are particularly relevant in this context. The manufacturer, in turn, may rely on Article 6(1), first sentence, point (c) of the GDPR for the data transfer, as the disclosure is made on the basis of a legal obligation under the Data Act. Finally, Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Dr Hubertus von Rönne outline the responsibilities of the supervisory authorities. The Federal Network Agency is generally responsible for complaints relating to the Data Act. As soon as personal data is involved, it must involve the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. The state data protection authorities remain responsible for traditional infringements of the GDPR – for example, if a farmer complains that a manufacturer is processing their personal data.

From October 2026, a paradigm shift will come into effect in Switzerland: for the first time, a central transparency register for beneficial owners of legal entities will be established. Companies will be obliged to disclose their ownership and control structures to the authorities. At the same time, advisers – in particular solicitors and notaries – will be subject to the Money Laundering Act when carrying out certain structuring activities. The reforms are primarily intended to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, but they entail significant new compliance obligations for the companies and advisers concerned. What does this mean in practical terms for board members, managing directors and those in advisory professions? And where do the new liability and compliance risks lie? We provide an overview.

The Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) has published its 33rd annual report, thereby setting out important guidelines for future data protection practice in Switzerland. The report highlights the issues currently occupying the supervisory authority and the areas in which companies can expect to face increased scrutiny under data protection law in future. Particular focus is placed on artificial intelligence, international data processing and the practical implementation of the revised Data Protection Act. Companies should therefore view the annual report not merely as a retrospective, but as a guide to their data protection compliance.

The 4th HÄRTING AI Day will take place in Berlin on 19 November 2026. The event will focus on current issues relating to artificial intelligence, the AI Act, data protection and the practical application of AI in businesses.

With the “Programme for Economic Recovery and Employment” adopted by the coalition committee, the Federal Government has announced numerous reforms to labour law. The aim is to ease the burden on businesses, make the labour market more flexible and reduce red tape. The announced changes are already attracting considerable attention. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that many of the proposals affect only a limited group of employers or can already be implemented to a large extent under current legislation. There is currently no need for businesses to make hasty adjustments. It is, however, advisable to monitor further legislative developments closely and, if necessary, to respond in due course.

On 11 September 2026, the 7th IT Women Lawyers’ Day will take place at HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte in Berlin. The BarCamp on digitalisation and the law is being organised by Marlene Schreiber of HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte and Nina Diercks of Diercks Law Firm. The IT Women Lawyers’ Day is not a traditional conference, but thrives on peer-to-peer exchange. Instead of rigid panel discussions, participants shape the day together: with their own topics, questions, experiences and perspectives. Through parallel sessions, this creates a bespoke programme covering IT law, data protection, AI, legal tech and other current topics in the digital legal world. The event is aimed at IT lawyers, data protection officers, IT security managers and anyone dealing with the legal aspects of digitalisation. The focus is on professional exchange, networking, visibility and mutual inspiration.

Artificial intelligence has long since found its way into many companies – including finance departments, for example in reporting, credit risk management or creditworthiness analyses. However, the use of AI raises numerous legal questions. In her article, Marlene Schreiber outlines the requirements companies must observe and explains why AI compliance is not merely a matter of the AI Regulation. The focus is particularly on data protection law, the AI Regulation, copyright law, employment law and the establishment of effective AI governance.