Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal


A recent ruling from Germany's Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has revived a legal battle over whether browser-based ad blockers infringe copyright, raising fears about a potential ban of the tools in the country.

The case stems from online media company Axel Springer's lawsuit against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension.

Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.

This is grounded in the assertion that a website's HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

Previously, this claim was rejected by a lower-level court in Hamburg, but a new ruling by the BGH found the earlier dismissal flawed and overturned part of the appeal, sending the case back for examination.

Mozilla's Senior IP & Product Counsel, Daniel Nazer, delivered a warning last week, noting that due to the underlying technical background of the legal dispute, the ban could also impact other browser extensions and hinder users' choices.

"There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage," Nazer says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need "to improve accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy."

As per BGH's ruling, Springer's argument needs to be re-examined to determine if DOM, CSS, and bytecode count as a protected computer program and whether the ad blocker's modifications are lawful.

"It cannot be excluded that the bytecode, or the code generated from it, is protected as a computer program, and that the ad blocker, through modification or modifying reproduction, infringed the exclusive right thereto," reads BGH's statement (automated translation).

While ad blockers haven't been outlawed, Springer's case has been revived now, and there's a real possibility that things may take a different turn this time.

Mozilla noted that the new proceedings could take up to a couple of years to reach a final conclusion. As the core issue is not settled, there is a future risk of extension developers to be held liable for financial losses.

Mozilla explains that, in the meantime, the situation could cause a chilling effect on browser users' freedom, with browser developers locking down their apps further, and extension developers limiting the functionality of their tools to avoid legal troubles.
 
I don't see how ANYONE can see what a pop-up laden, misdirection and fraudulent attempt to get you to click on the wrong thing hellscape most of the internet has become and think, hmmm, pop up blockers are bad, hmmm-kay?

Maybe if websites could actually produce content worthy of gaf gol...err, a subscription fee, or make ads that were tasteful, unobtrusive, and NOT hinged on Spyware tracking of users, that folks wouldn't block them?

More Sydney Sweeney in a bikini and less fake "click here" nonsense.
 
...The case stems from online media company Axel Springer's lawsuit against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension.

Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.

This is grounded in the assertion that a website's HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification....
They won't just be making ad blockers illegal, they'll be making anything that alters the foundational presentation of a website outside of the served file structure illegal. For example, I'm pretty sure the the zoom function in your Chromium browser does this - which is why the web page remains responsive as everything is artificially enlarged. That's a can of worms you don't wanna open.
 
Every German 164 times a day:


they-cant-win-v0-alu9ay36g1aa1.jpg
 
You vill vatch ze ads until morale improves!

10 years ago I'd never think that a headline this stupid would be real, but in 2025 here we are. I have to hope that the US won't also consider this shit, but you just never know these days...
 
Wait, I thought Europe was all about consumer advocacy and user privacy. Now they want to ban ad-block and add ID and face scans to use the internet.


Everything about modern Europe is PR bullshit, they force Apple to introduce USB-C and gloat about how pro-consumer they are for years, meanwhile they introduce Orwellian shit like Chat Control the media are trying to hide as much as humanly possible. It's calculated, one PR stunt then 5 Orwellian bullshit or anti-consumer practices as the bureaucrats slowly take full control
 
I'm not blocking ads. I'm blocking the scripts that try to sneak in and install a variety of malware, spyware, adware, etc on my PC.

And while I'm being a little facetious with that comment, I absolutely worry more about that stuff than seeing, and ignoring, your dumbass ads.
 
Maybe if websites could actually produce content worthy of gaf gol...err, a subscription fee, or make ads that were tasteful, unobtrusive, and NOT hinged on Spyware tracking of users, that folks wouldn't block them?
Maybe if you don't agree with a website running ads you either don't visit it or you pay for ad-free experience?
 
They can pry the ad blockers from my cold, dead fingers.

There's precious few websites I'm willing to turn ad block off for because 90% of ads are obtrusive and make browsing a pain in the dick. If they solved that issue I'd be much more willing to turn it off.
 
They won't just be making ad blockers illegal, they'll be making anything that alters the foundational presentation of a website outside of the served file structure illegal. For example, I'm pretty sure the the zoom function in your Chromium browser does this - which is why the web page remains responsive as everything is artificially enlarged. That's a can of worms you don't wanna open.
That was my thought as well. As someone intimately familiar with the topic, I can say this is a terrible precedent to set.
 
Websites and advertisers did it to themselves.

Back in the day, ads were pretty low key. You get some little Google adsense kind of ads on the side of the page in little grey boxes. Easy to avoid, small and non intrusive. And then you'd get some banner ads.

Not the end of the world.

Then at some point, you got shit tons of ads everywhere, auto-playing videos, YT vids with ads and sponsors segments, that annoying one which I dont think you can avoid as it's embedded into the page... that one where the ad is layered behind the content and as you scroll down the page it scrolls down too like parallax scrolling in a video game. Then on smartphone apps you get that thing where you load a page and want to click a link and a banner ad shows up at the last minute so you click that instead. Yada yada. Oh and worst of all, pop up ads.

Give advertisers and web guys credit for more and more creative ads, but forget it. Too much.
 
Last edited:
The EU is desperately trying to keep the nationalist tube in the toothpaste as the natives seek to throw off the chains of the American occupation they have lived under since 1945. Controlling the internet is crucial to that goal.
 
I once used chinese internet without an ad-blocker, and it was like digital aids. I wouldn't be surprised if the EU is going in this direction with state sponsored spyware required to read the news
They won't just be making ad blockers illegal, they'll be making anything that alters the foundational presentation of a website outside of the served file structure illegal. For example, I'm pretty sure the the zoom function in your Chromium browser does this - which is why the web page remains responsive as everything is artificially enlarged. That's a can of worms you don't wanna open.
Then they would have to make open-source illegal. Good luck with that
 
Top Bottom