Striking a balance between the European country-of-origin principle and national youth protection: Dusseldorf Administrative Court sets new standards for blocking websites

Over recent months, German courts have confirmed several orders blocking erotic platforms. The reason was that the providers had failed to implement reliable age verification systems on their platforms. Without these systems, minors are able to freely access the content, which in the courts’ opinion represents a breach of the statutory rules designed to protect children and young people under the German Youth Media Protection State Treaty (Jugendmedienstaatsvertrag) and Youth Protection Act (Jugendschutzgesetz) (see for example Munich Administrative Court (VG München), order of 5 June 2025 – M 17 S 25.478; Koblenz Higher Administrative Court (OVG Koblenz), order of 30 July 2025 – 2 B 10575/25.OVG and Koblenz Higher Administrative Court, order of 30 July 2022 – B 10576/25.OVG).

However, a recent decision by Dusseldorf Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf) marks a distinct change of course. In summary proceedings, the court decided that for the time being the Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia (Landesanstalt für Medien NRW) may not oblige internet providers Telekom and Vodafone to block the pornographic platforms YouPorn and Pornhub, operated by Cyprus-based company Aylo (press release of 19 November 2025, available here (in German only)). The court highlighted concerns arising from European law as the main reason for this, taking a critical view of national application of German youth protection rules to a provider located abroad. It regarded the decisive factor as being the EU “country-of-origin” or “home state regulation” principle enshrined in the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) and the AVMS Directive (Directive 2010/13/EU). This principle provides that a company based in any EU Member State can offer services throughout the EU but is subject only to the laws of its home Member State. It said that national interventions are only permitted in limited and exceptional cases – conditions the court clearly did not consider met in the present case.

The decision is just one example from a series of recent court cases in which the EU-law dimension of platform and media regulation plays a pivotal role. For instance, in a case before Berlin Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht Berlin) concerning Spotify, it is being disputed whether the duty to meet transparency requirements set out in the German State Media Treaty (Medienstaatsvertrag) applies to the music streaming service, since the platform contends that this infringes the EU’s Digital Services Act and E-Commerce Directive. Berlin Administrative Court has meanwhile referred the question to the ECJ for a ruling (Berlin Administrative Court (VG Berlin), order of 17 December 2024 – VG 32 L 221/24). The ECJ’s judgment in proceedings concerning Google (ECJ, judgment of 9 November 2023 – C-376/22 = GRUR 2024, 65) exhibits a similar orientation towards EU law. The ECJ confirmed the platforms’ view that an EU Member State may not impose general and abstract obligations on a provider of communication platforms established in another Member State. It maintained that the objective of the E-Commerce Directive was to create a legal framework ensuring the free movement of information society services between Member States. As it pointed out, the country-of-origin principle is intended to eliminate the obstacles resulting from divergencies in national legislation. While it conceded that other Member States can take measures under strict conditions – such as public policy, safety or protection of consumers and minors – it said that these measures should not be general and abstract and should not apply indiscriminately to all providers of a category of information society services irrespective of whether they are established in the Member State concerned or in another EU Member State.

Thus the basic pattern followed by all the decisions is similar: as soon as cross-border services are affected, the key question of EU jurisdiction applies, which has a significant impact on national regulatory measures.

For companies providing digital content or acting as access providers, this development makes it clear that blocking injunctions and other interventions are not automatically valid. Instead, the first step should always be to ascertain whether national law applies at all. The proceedings referred to above underline that regulatory measures are increasingly navigating a fine line between national media law and the European freedom to provide services. This means that for many companies it is worth conducting a legal review at an early stage before adverse technical, regulatory or economic consequences arise.

What companies should bear in mind:

• Review the EU legal framework: the country-of-origin principle can significantly limit national blocking injunctions.
• Assess regulatory measures carefully: blocking measures and other interventions are not automatically enforceable.
• Use summary proceedings strategically: these procedures may allow for more time and can force authorities to review their measures in accordance with EU law.
• Consider cross-border risks: Digital service providers should nevertheless look at national and EU requirements in combination, especially in relation to youth protection, platform supervision and website blocking, so as to recognise and assess any risks.

Conducting a legal analysis at an early stage can be crucial if you wish to minimise risks and use any room for manoeuvre effectively. Noerr has substantial experience in this field and will be happy to provide you with all-round advice on regulatory, procedural and EU issues involving digital services and platform regulation.