The article by Hans Caspar von der Crone and Keivan Mohasseb analyses the current status of the revision of company law following the Council of States’ deliberations in June 2019 and highlights the key political and legal directions taken by the reform project. Drawing on ten key topics – including the capital band, general meetings held abroad, statutory arbitration clauses, remuneration rules and loyalty shares – the authors highlight the main differences between the National Council and the Council of States. The presentation combines an overview of the parliamentary decisions with a critical assessment of their practical implications. The article thus offers a concise guide to the key developments in Swiss company law at that time.

The article by Keivan Mohasseb and Hans Caspar von der Crone analyses a ruling by the Federal Supreme Court on the question: Can rights of configuration, once exercised, be revoked retrospectively? Taking as their starting point a dispute over the delayed creation of a condominium, the authors examine the legal principles underlying rights of configuration and the scope of the principle of their irrevocability. The article highlights the conditions under which a switch between different legal remedies may nevertheless be permissible, and places the Federal Supreme Court’s considerations within the general context of contract law.

This article analyses a judgment of the Zurich Commercial Court concerning the judicial enforcement of minority shareholders’ right to information under company law. It focuses on the conditions, limits and procedures for the provision of information, as well as enforcement through legal action under Article 697 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. Keivan Mohasseb and Hans Caspar von der Crone contextualise the decision within current company law whilst also examining the implications of the then-pending revision of company law. The article thus offers valuable guidance for practice in the area of tension between shareholders’ interests in information and the company’s interests in confidentiality.

Episode 44 of the Data Navigator podcast focuses on FRAND in the Data Act – specifically, the conditions under which data owners must disclose IoT data to third parties and what they are permitted to charge for this. Martin Schirmbacher and Hubertus von Rönne explain the details of the new legal framework. The starting point is the familiar triangle: a user (e.g. a wind farm operator) instructs the manufacturer (e.g. Vestas) to send operational data directly to a third party (e.g. the start-up Turbit). To this end, a contract must be concluded between the manufacturer and the third party (see Art. 8 Data Act), and remuneration is governed by Art. 9 DA, all on FRAND terms. The user, however, may request the data free of charge. Martin and Hubertus go through in detail which costs the manufacturer is permitted to charge (provision costs, onboarding, margin where applicable, and investment costs – though the latter, for example, not vis-à-vis SMEs), which billing models the Commission’s draft guidelines provide for, and what ‘non-discriminatory’ means in practice. Key principle: The value of the data itself must not be priced. The conclusion: Remuneration issues will develop differently depending on the sector. At present, progress is often still stalling on fundamental issues: What data is actually being shared, and how should it be categorised? The call remains: producers, users and data recipients must come together within their respective sectors and also discuss the terms of data provision.

On 26 March 2026, the Bundestag passed the Act Implementing the Data Regulation (DADG), which was published in the Federal Law Gazette on 29 May. Germany has thus – albeit with a significant delay – established the national legal framework required of Member States under the EU Data Act. Below, we provide an overview of the background, content and penalty provisions of the new Act.

AI has long been used in many areas within organisations: in HR, marketing, software development, customer service, legal, procurement and management. Whilst this often promises significant efficiency gains or better results, it is not uncommon for it to be accompanied by shadow AI, unclear tool approvals, data protection risks, copyright issues and uncertainty amongst staff. At the same time, legal regulation is becoming more concrete. The AI Regulation not only requires an assessment of legal risks but also mandates, depending on the risk class, documented decisions, robust processes, clear roles and AI expertise within the organisation.

Access controls via facial scanning, age verification in e-commerce, voice recognition in customer service, or emotion analysis in video calls – there are many practical applications for biometric systems in business. Artificial intelligence (AI) makes many of these systems better, faster and more effective. But the use of AI in conjunction with biometric data is not only drawing the attention of data protection authorities – against the backdrop of the AI Regulation (AI-VO), many companies are faced with the question: Which biometric applications are prohibited under the AI-VO, which are considered high-risk, and when do ‘mere’ transparency obligations apply?

First (00:38), Dr Stefan Brink and Prof Niko Härting discuss the coalition agreement of Baden-Württemberg’s new state government, which provides for staff cuts of up to 40 per cent at the State Data Protection Commissioner’s office. One of the reasons given for this is a planned centralisation within the Federal Data Protection Commissioner’s office. Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Subsequently (11:02), Härting and Brink discuss a ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court dated 6 May 2026, ref. VG 42 K 73/25, which confirmed the legality of ID checks and video surveillance at Berlin’s summer swimming pools. Finally (21:21), the topic is freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed a lawsuit brought by the betting provider Tipico against Der Spiegel. Tipico sought to challenge the statement: “Four men from Karlsruhe founded and built up the company; they pushed the boundaries of what is legally permissible and went beyond them.” Brink finds the decision unsettling, whereas Härting considers it well-founded.

This year’s Copyright Conference organised by the Swiss Forum for Communications Law, which will take place on 16 June 2026 in Bern, is themed ‘From Copyright to Media Regulation?’ and will examine the increasing regulatory density in the digital environment. Whilst traditional copyright law has historically focused on exclusive rights and individual enforcement, current developments show a clear shift towards specific obligations of conduct and action for digital intermediaries.

Article 50 of the AI Regulation stipulates that, from August 2026, certain AI-related content must be labelled (find out more here). There is considerable uncertainty as to what constitutes a ‘deepfake’ that is subject to this labelling requirement.

In episode 43 of the Data Navigator podcast, Dr Martin Schirmbacher, partner and specialist solicitor in IT law at HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte, and Dr Hubertus von Roenne, partner at the strategy consultancy Upgrade, speak with Dr Matthias Nachtmann about the use of data in agriculture. Matthias Nachtmann is the founder and chairman of Friends of Digital Farming, an association promoting the digitalisation of agriculture and food. In the discussion, he explains how data usage currently works in agriculture and what conditions are needed for a functioning data economy in the agri-food sector. Among other things, the discussion addresses why farmers today are often faced with differing data requests from various customers, the role of common rules for data exchange, and why data only scales when it delivers concrete productivity benefits to farms. Other topics covered in the episode include process data and location data in the field, the example of nitrogen with varying requirements across different federal states, and the question of who should define the ‘traffic rules’ for a functioning data economy. Federalism and its impact on innovation in the agricultural sector are also discussed. Further information on digital farming Consultancy and strategy on digital farming by Dr Matthias Nachtmann Friends of Digital Farming Fraunhofer IESE: Digital Farming / Smart Farming Chair of Digital Farming at RPTU GeoBox Rhineland-Palatinate Further podcast episodes on data in the agricultural sector Episode 38: The Data Act from a machinery manufacturer’s perspective with Georg Larscheid from Claas Episode 34: The Data Act from a farmer’s perspective with farmer Dag Frerichs Episode 24: What does the Data Act mean for the agricultural sector? with Prof. Dr Reinhard Grandke All previous episodes of the Data Navigator podcast on the Data Act Data Navigator Newsletter Using data: New every two weeks. Subscribe to the Data Navigator Newsletter now. General information on the Data Act The Data Act as adopted by the Council of the European Union on 27 November 2023 FAQ on the Data Act: “You ask, we answer: How the Data Act affects your business!”

The “Green Deal” – personally announced by Ms von der Leyen in 2019 – promised great things: climate neutrality by 2050, emissions trading and billions in financial support. Now, the “Empowering Consumers” Directive (EmpCo, 2024/825) marks another milestone in the fight against climate change. At least, that is how the Commission sees it. In addition to banning misleading green claims, the directive sets out comprehensive new information requirements for traders. These are to be transposed into national law by March 2026 and will apply from the end of September 2026. Specifically, for the purpose of informing consumers, this concerns information on statutory warranty rights and voluntary manufacturer guarantees.