Views
Muscles from Munich? How German Courts Might Stop US Companies from Violating Copyright through AI Training
Yesterday, the Regional Court of Munich (Landgericht München I) held a highly interesting oral hearing in a dispute brought by GEMA, a German collecting society representing composers, and Suno, a generative music AI company based in Cambridge, MA. The hearing was noteworthy, first, because it gave the public an opportunity to listen to numerous international hits, from Alphaville’s Forever Young to Lou Bega’s Mambo No. 5 (and their alleged copies created by Suno) in a courtroom; and secondly, because the dispute raises some interesting questions of private international law.
After GEMA had already scored a famous victory against OpenAI in November 2025, when the same chamber of the Munich Court had held that the company had been violating the copyrights of several artists and composers by reproducing their song texts, the present proceedings differed not just in scope (focusing on the musical arrangement rather than texts) but also in its international dimension. For the first time, the claimant explicitly included the use of the protected works for training that had happened (according to both parties) exclusively in the US.
German Federal Court of Justice on the Pegasus-Software Scandal: States do not have a general right of personality
This case note is kindly provided by Dr. Samuel Vuattoux-Bock, LL.M. (Kiel), Freiburg University (Germany)
On February 24, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled on the Kingdom of Morocco’s claim against the German news portal “Zeit Online” (Case no. VI ZR 415/23). In 2021, the journal alleged that Morocco had spied on several lawyers, journalists, and high-ranking politicians, including French President Emmanuel Macron, using the surveillance software “Pegasus”. Morocco denied the allegations and sued the publication for damages, claiming an infringement of its general right of personality. The Federal Court of Justice of Germany, the highest court for civil and criminal matters, rejected Morocco’s claim, arguing that states do not have such a right. This decision is interesting because it lies at the intersection of private international law, national tort law, and public international law. The following article aims to present the main points of this decision in terms of both its international and substantive aspects.
CC BY SA 3.0 ComQuat Wikimedia CommonsClimate Litigation Before the German Federal Court of Justice – “Too Complex” for Private Law instruments?
Written by Marc-Philippe Weller, Carolina Radke, and Marianna Dänner (all Heidelberg University)
On 2 March 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof; “BGH”) held an oral hearing in two proceedings concerning the civil liability of companies regarding climate change. The authors of this blog post attended the hearing as members of the audience.
The German NGO Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) is suing the car manufacturers BMW and Mercedes Benz, requesting a legal order obliging both companies to refrain from placing combustion engine cars on the market beyond 2030. These two proceedings join the club of (strategic) climate change lawsuits in Germany. Crucially, they are the first of their kind based on tort law to reach the German Federal Court of Justice. Accordingly, the hearing was eagerly awaited by many. The decision, which will be rendered on 23 March 2026, will undoubtedly have an impact on future climate lawsuits.
While no issues of international jurisdiction or applicable law arose in the proceedings in question – as all Parties are seated in Germany –, the judgment of the BGH could further motivate foreign parties to bring claims against German companies, thereby giving rise to questions of international jurisdiction and the applicable law (see for more details Weller/Weiner, Corporate Climate Liability in Private International Law, in: Japanese Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 26 (2024), 2). In this context, one may refer to the deliberations of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm in Lliuya against RWE (OLG Hamm, 28. Mai 2025, 5 U 15/17).
News
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 2/2026: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:
Registration open: Australasian Association of Private International Law Conference, Sydney, 16-17 April 2026
Registrations for the 2026 AAPrIL Conference, to be held on 16 and 17 Apriil 2026, are now open!
VENUE: Ashurst Lawyers
Level 8, 39 Martin Place
Sydney, New South Wales 2000
AUSTRALIA
PANELS AND SESSIONS:
- Jurisdiction
- Private International Law and Digitalisation
- Regional and International Cooperation
- Arbitration
- Applicable Law
Attendance at conference sessions can be used for CPD; you will need to check local requirements.
REGISTRATION FEES:
If you are coming for both days, please select Friday.
Non-member 2 days: $160
Non-member 1 day: $90
AAPrIL member 2 days: $120
AAPrIL member 1 day: $70
Student: Free to attend the conference only
Conference dinner: $110 for dinner and a selection of drinks
REGISTRATION INCLUDES:
Access to all conference sessions
Morning tea and coffee, morning teas and lunches
Access to purchase a conference dinner ticket at an additional cost of $110
ELI-Webinar “Enhancing Child Protection” (Int’l Filiation Law)
As already announced in another post, there will be a Webinar organized by the European Law Institute (ELI) on March 12 to present and discuss the Project Report of the ELI Project “Enhancing Child Protection: Private International Law on Filiation and the European Commission’s Proposal COM/2022/695 final”