Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Last week, German regulators decided to no longer accept the widely used “JusProg” software as a sufficient means for online service providers to comply with st

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Youth Protection in Germany: Are Online Age Checks & Daytime Blackouts Ahead?

Youth Protection in Germany: Are Online Age Checks & Daytime Blackouts Ahead? | Socially Aware

Andreas Grünwald

Christoph Nüßing

Last week, German regulators decided to no longer accept the widely used “JusProg” software as a sufficient means for online service providers to comply with statutory youth protection requirements. The decision is effective immediately, although it will most likely be challenged in court. If it prevails, it puts video-sharing platforms, distributors of gaming content, and online media services at risk of being held accountable for not properly protecting minors from potentially harmful content. For the affected providers, this is particularly challenging because it will be hard, if not impossible, to implement alternative youth protection tools that will meet the redefined regulatory standards.This alert provides the legal background for the decision and discusses its implications in more detail. It is relevant to all online service providers that target German users.Legal BackgroundUnder German youth protection laws, all online service providers must generally ensure that minors cannot access any content that is deemed harmful for their respective age group. For example, 16+ rated content shall not be available to younger users. “Harmful” content is content that is considered to adversely affect an individual’s personal development, such as nudity or violence. It is distinct from “illegal” content (e.g., Nazi propaganda or hate speech), which must not be made available to any audience per se, and which may also be subject to criminal charges.German law offers online service providers a choice of three possible means to comply with this obligation:<ol class="ol1"><li class="li1">Use scheduling restrictions to ensure that harmful content is not available during daytime, i.e., when minors would usually be online. For example, 16+ rated content should only be shown between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.</li><li class="li1">Employ technical measures to ensure that minors are at least significantly impeded (if not fully blocked) from accessing any content that is not suitable for their age group. This will typically require the service provider to issue a PIN to an adult user after conducting an age verification check.</li><li class="li1">Tag content with age labeling in a format that officially approved youth protection software can read. In practice, service providers often store an “age-de.xml” file with their offering. This file then designates suitable age groups for the service as a whole or separately for individual parts of the service.</li></ol>As long as a provider implements at least one of these options, it will comply with German youth protection law.The third option, age labeling, is obviously the easiest to implement. It shifts responsibility for ensuring an adequate level of youth protection to legal guardians because age labeling will only have an effect when end users run corresponding youth protection software on their own devices. This is why many major domestic and international services have thus far been happy to rely on this option as a relatively smooth way of ensuring compliance with German youth protection laws.The JusProg DecisionRelying on the third option has always been somewhat risky. It only works as long as there actually is an approved youth protection software available on the market. To date, only one software solution met this criterion, the JusProg product, and following last week’s decision, now there is no such solution any more.JusProg was developed by a German association of online service providers. It received initial regulatory approval in 2012, and since then it has been deemed as a suitable means for online service providers to comply with their youth protection obligations. Since 2016, the regulatory body in charge of the approval process is the German Association for Voluntary Self-Regulation of Digital Media Service Providers (Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia or <a href="https://www.fsm.de/en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FSM</a>). FSM is a self-regulatory body, and one of the German State Media Authorities must formally confirm its decisions. The State Media Authorities, in turn, have trusted one of their joint bodies with this confirmatory decision, the Commission on Youth Protection in the Media (Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz or KJM).When FSM first approved JusProg in 2017, it received KJM’s blessing. In March 2019, FSM renewed its approval and again asked for KJM confirmation. This time, though, KJM decided to void FSM’s approval in a decision made public on May 15, 2019, i.e., it now no longer accepts JusProg. KJM claims that FSM’s decision was flawed because it did not properly take into account that an efficient youth protection software had to work across platforms and systems—and and JusProg is only available for Windows PCs. FSM disputes this view and will challenge it in court. FSM argues that there is no legal requirement for any such cross-platform functionality, and that approving JusProg was thus lawful.Impact for Online Service ProvidersKJM not only decided to void FSM’s JusProg approval, it also ruled that its decision shall be effective immediately. So, therefore, even FSM now appealing KJM’s decision in court will not suspend that decision. Rather, FSM will have to take interim action requesting that the court re-establish such suspensive effect, i.e., to stop KJM from enforcing its decision until the court has finally decided on the merits of FSM’s complaint. In these interim proceedings, the court will have to consider (i) whether the public interest requires that KJM’s decision must indeed apply immediately, or (ii) whether it seems appropriate to put any enforcement on hold until the court has formed a final view on the legality of FSM’s approval—which may only happen within the next few years.In any event, online service providers’ preferred option to comply with German youth protection laws is now in jeopardy, since they can no longer rely on JusProg. And as long as the court does not dismiss KJM’s view at least on an interim basis, the State Media Authorities will be free to start enforcement action. They could then approach each online service provider that displays potentially harmful content and request that other means be put in place to prevent minors from accessing that content. If a provider fails to comply with that request, it may ultimately be facing monetary fines and/or an order to shut down its service.This presents the affected providers with a dilemma. Not only is there no alternative software tool available that is FSM/KJM approved. Both other ways of complying with German youth protection laws— scheduling restrictions and technical means such as PIN protection—will not really work for many online services. Both would have a severe impact on the operations and business models of most of these providers. This would specifically apply to providers of services with user-generated content (UGC). Under German law, UGC channels operated by the users of the UGC platform are, in many cases, subject to youth protection regulation themselves – in addition to the UGC platform as such. So far, most of these UGC channels were covered by the JusProg solution that was applied at the platform level and did not require any additional measures. With JusProg no longer being available, regulatory pressure will increase not only on the platform operators, but also on each individual content provider.Due to these complications, all affected major industry associations in Germany have made statements harshly criticizing the KJM decision. They claim that it undermines all positive efforts made by the industry to ensure a modern and efficient standard for online youth protection.International ImpactThe German youth protection rules are significantly stricter than what harmonized EU law would require. Specifically, under the current <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive</a> (AVMSD), EU Member States must only ensure that minors will normally not perceive harmful content via online services—without further restricting the means by which this goal shall be achieved.Under these requirements, for example, the UK imposes less restricting youth protection requirements on online services. The UK requirements apply to providers of on-demand video services with material that rated 18+ or with any material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors. Services making such content available in the UK must provide age-verification measures that meet certain minimum standards.However, the incoming 2018 AVMSD amendment that all Member States must implement by September 2020 will align EU law (and subsequently, Member State law) more closely with the current German standards.Regardless, in terms of jurisdiction, these German standards do already not only apply to services domiciled in Germany, but in fact to all online services that are available in the German market. Even EU e-commerce law and the AVMSD, which both generally provide for a country of origin principle, include an exception for compliance with local youth protection regimes.Next StepsThe primary focus will now be on FSM’s legal action against the KJM decision. Most importantly, it remains to be seen whether the court will suspend the immediate effect of that decision. If it does, this would not solve the overall uncertainty about JusProg being legitimate, but it would at least buy some time for the industry to come up with alternative solutions.At the same time, the State Media Authorities have indicated that they are open to discuss alternative compliance measures. Affected providers could also reach out to their industry associations (or to the State Media Authorities directly) to become engaged in this discussion and to ensure that compliance with German youth protection law will remain practicable in the future.