www.bild.de

[adguard-bot]

Information

Deutsch

Sehr geehrte Benutzerin, sehr geehrter Benutzer, aufgrund von Gesetzen (z. B. die Gerichtsentscheidung in Karlsruhe, Deutschland im Jahre 2018) ist es leider nicht möglich diese Paywall (Adblock-Erkennung) zu umgehen. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.

English

Dear user, due to a court decision (eg the court ruling in Karlsruhe, Germany in 2018 ) it is unfortunately not possible to bypass this paywall (adblock detection). Thank you for your understanding.

[zubrRB]

А предупреждение об использовании cookies блокировать можно на данном сайте?)

Screenshot:


[UweKraatz]

I can't read anywhere in the court ruling that the advertising on the Axel Springer WEB-site may not be blocked by ad blocker. Furthermore: It is not a circumvention of the paywall.

All other known Adblockers work. MalwareBytes, uBlock Origin, Adblockplus. Why is Adguard detected?

[Daedalus3]

Agreed - the court judgement actually says exactly the opposite.

"The ad blocker programme AdBlock Plus does not violate the law against unfair competition. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice in a ruling on 19 April 2018 and dismissed an action for injunctive relief brought by the media company Axel Springer."

Source: Beck

[adguard-bot]

Issue URL (Incorrect Blocking)

https://www.bild.de/#fromWall

Comment

Blockiert alle 30 Sekunden obwohl deaktiviert

Screenshots

Screenshot 1


Screenshot 1 with AdGuard disabled


System configuration

Information	Value
AdGuard product:	AdGuard for Windows v7.18.1 (4778)
System version:	Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.22631.0
Browser:	Chrome
License type:	paid
AdGuard driver:	WFP
Tracking protection:	disabled
DNS filtering:	server: System filters: https://filters.adtidy.org/windows/filters/15.txt, User rules
Filters:	Ad Blocking: AdGuard Base Privacy: AdGuard Tracking Protection Social Widgets: AdGuard Social Media Annoyances: AdGuard Cookie Notices, AdGuard Popups, AdGuard Mobile App Banners, AdGuard Other Annoyances, AdGuard Widgets Language-specific: AdGuard German
Browsing Security:	enabled
Browsing Security statistics:	disabled
Userscripts:	https://userscripts.adtidy.org/release/adguard-extra/1.0/adguard-extra.user.js https://userscripts.adtidy.org/release/popup-blocker/2.5/popupblocker.user.js
Userstyles:	disabled
Referrer:	https://www.bild.de/adblockwall.html
Other extensions used:	Keine

Issue configuration

Import

[Alex-302]

For user rules: bild.de#%#//scriptlet('json-prune', 'CLIENT_STORE_INITIAL_STATE.pageAggregation.advertisement.adBlockWallEnabled')

[Daedalus3]

Since @Alex-302 seems to be working on this: again, the court ruling says nothing close to what is stated in post 1 of this topic. The court expressly allowed Ad Blockers and Axel Springer (bild.de) lost the case. There is no reason not to block ads on bild.de.

The court stated:

"However, the BGH does not see any infringements by Eyeo. One reason is that internet users themselves block the adverts by installing the software. Axel Springer could also defend itself by blocking access to offers for users who use an ad blocker."

[Alex-302]

@Daedalus3 We block ads. Adblock wall is another thing.

[Daedalus3]

I accept this as a company decision. However, the initial post / argument is simply wrong. BTW: The BGH did also not forbid to bypass an adblock wall.