German court outlaws onUnload pop-ups

Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

German court outlaws onUnload pop-ups

which is great

RonPK

5:48 pm on Apr 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

I searched the forum but could not find any mentioning of this interesting verdict on March 26:

A court in Düsseldorf made the owner of a website pay a fine of 10,000 Euro, because the site used unrequested pop up windows, showing ads, whenever visitors left the site. The court found that visitors were forced to read the messages against their will.

Source: [heise.de ] (in German)

Nick_W

5:51 pm on Apr 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

NICE

I don't think that's been reported here so, nice find!

Hope that precendent starts the ball rolling in the rest of the net....

Nick

Damian

7:24 pm on Apr 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Imagine what the fine would be for a pop under ...;)

Seriously, I think it's strange that a court is intervening here, what's next? Nobody ever asks for an ad in any shape, regardless of wheter it's a popup I'd say. If people don't like sites with popups they simply shouldn't visit or return to a site serving them IMO.

sullen

7:42 pm on Apr 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

Good on the Germans!

Pop-ups of any kind annoy me, but sneaky ads (pop-unders and onunload pop-ups). Ads on the page however are fair enough.

heini

11:19 pm on Apr 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

This decision, as far as I understand it, is specifically aimed at exit popups. The argument is if a user has decided to leave, and per leaving the site clearly demonstrated this decision, showing another popup from that site is aginst his will.
The judge compared that to sending unsolicited email.

So this decision does not pertain to popups in general, only to exit popups.
Furthermore it's just one decision, other courts may decide differently.

grahamstewart

12:52 am on Apr 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmmm.. the door of my local pub has an advert for beer on it. Does this mean I can sue them for forcing me to read an advert when I have already decided to leave? ;)

tedster

1:03 am on Apr 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've been searching for more information, but I found none so far. It also seems that part of the issue here was the nature of the advertising - adult and casino. So there's a mish mash of exit ads, pop-ups and adult content.

RonPK

7:59 am on Apr 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

tedster,
The complete verdict can be read at [netlaw.de ]. It is in a lawyer-lingo version of German, so I don't understand much of it. Maybe a native speaker can shine some light.

tedster

9:06 am on Apr 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not a native speaker (although I grew up in Pennsylvania German farmland), but here's how I understand that. No guarantees on accuracy, but I think I'm a cut above Babelfish.

On 26 March 2003 LG Duesseldorf (à O 186/02) decided that PopUp windows which open automatically when an Internet user wants to leave a Website are a form of unfair competition and against the interest of society.
Vendors of erotic materials and gambling often use this form of ad to keep potential customers on their site for as long a time as possible.
In his verdict, the Duesseldorf judge compared this kind of advertising to unsolicited commercial email, because visitors are forced against their expressed will to receive the information.
He sided with the plaintiffs, and they are therefore entitled to damages.
The verdict in this suit agrees with the argument that PopUp windows are an illegal form of business competition, and awards damages to the plaintiff in the amount of 10,000 Euro.

gsx

9:27 am on Apr 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't like pop-up windows on exiting site particularly. Depending on what is in the window, it can be made to seem that the pop-up came from the next site. This is not like a beer advert on the door of the pub you are leaving, but more like putting an obstructive advert for the pub you just left on the door of the pub you are just going to!

heini

10:00 am on Apr 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

So I just read the complete court decision. It's been a long and muddy battle between live cam site owners, involving domain names, trademarks, individual contracts with actresses, and then some.
What we are talking about here is merely a side issue with the original case.

The judges specifically decided on the practice of spawning multiple windows on a user trying to leave a site. In this case it was about the download access software window, which upon getting closed by the user spawned an endless chain of popups/new windows.

The central point is, the user has specifically expressed his will to leave the site by closing the window.

So this decision in no way pertains to popups in general.