Sharing

Access data

within the Group.

8. April 2026

of

Clemens Pfitzer

What happens if employees of a company simply pass on the access data of a paid database to their colleagues? Does the database provider have to accept such unlicensed multiple use under competition law?And when does this become a real case for competition or confidentiality law?

A well-known annoyance of many database providers

Anyone who operates an online database with sensitive industry information is familiar with the problem. A company acquires a single access, passes the access data on internally to other employees and thus effectively uses the content several times without buying additional licenses. The provider’s turnover suffers and the frustration is great. However, whether a claim under trade secret lawor competition law can be derived from this is legally less clear than many of those affected assume. The Nuremberg Higher Regional Court has now formulated a clarification that is important in practice.

The facts of the case

A provider of a database with health and industry information had only granted a large group individual access. However, contrary to the license terms, the access data was passed on within the group to a working group of around ten people who used the database jointly. The provider saw this as a deliberate obstruction of its business model and an infringement of its trade secrets and demanded an injunction, information, damages and permission to publish the judgment on the Internet. The Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court dismissed the claim. The appeal ended up at the Higher Regional Court.

The decision of the OLG Nuremberg

The Nuremberg Higher Regional Court has ruled Decision of 18.12.2025 – Ref. 3 U 158/25 unanimously dismissed the appeal and confirmed the view of the regional court. In essence, the court held that the internal disclosure of access data within the group does not constitute an infringement of competition law in the form of targeted obstruction of the database provider. The decisive factor here is a consideration that may initially seem surprising. There is no competitive relationship at all between the database provider and the group, which only uses the database internally free of charge. The group does not act as a provider of comparable information products on the market. Anyone who thwarts the conclusion of an additional license agreement by passing on a password may affect the provider’s sales, but does not deliberately hinder them in terms of competition law.

The court also commented on the protection of trade secrets. Even if one were to assume that the contents of the database constituted confidential information, an infringement of this protection in the specific case would not give rise to a claim for publication of the judgment on the Internet. Such publication is a sharp sword and is only justified if the infringer has gained a lasting advantage from the act. The mere facilitation of use by some employees is not sufficient for this. It is also interesting to note that the court found that there was a personal connection between the members of a group-wide working group of around ten people, which ruled out making the contents of the database publicly accessible in the legal sense.

In its reasoning, the Senate stated that the passing on of passwords within such a limited group of people does not constitute a case that fulfills the special characteristics of a public publication. The involvement of a group working on the internal group intranet also remains legally in a private space.

What companies should take away from this

For database providers, the decision is a reminder not to rely solely on competition law. Those wishing to protect themselves against internal disclosure should draft their license agreements precisely. Contractual penalties, technical access controls with individualized user IDs and audit rights are generally more effective than recourse to the law against unfair competition or protection of secrets. Purely contractual claims under the license agreement remain possible and should be the main focus in such cases.

For companies that use databases, the decision is not a carte blanche. The disclosure of access data generally remains a breach of the terms of use and can trigger contractual consequences , including termination without notice or liability for damages. The Higher Regional Court merely ruled that this does not result in any liability under competition law and certainly not in a right to publication of the judgment on the Internet. Those who do not want to pay their license fees therefore gain nothing. They only risk another form of claim.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

Competition law!

Contact form

Call now!