{"id":103147,"date":"2026-07-19T21:48:29","date_gmt":"2026-07-19T20:48:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=103147"},"modified":"2026-07-19T22:02:39","modified_gmt":"2026-07-19T21:02:39","slug":"platform-hosting-liability-gambling-advertising","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/","title":{"rendered":"Does a video platform lose its protected status as soon as it signs an advertising deal with a creator?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In principle, a platform such as YouTube is not liable for what users upload, as long as it limits itself to merely storing that content. But what if the platform reviews a creator\u2019s channel and videos before entering into a commercial partnership? In that case, it loses that protection, the Court of Justice ruled in its ruling of July 16, 2026, in Case C-421\/24 (AGCOM v. Google Ireland<\/a>). Anyone who screens a channel's content before sharing in its revenue knows what's on it and can no longer hide behind the role of a neutral intermediary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Italian media regulator AGCOM imposed a fine of 750,000 euros on Google Ireland. The reason: five YouTube channels belonging to a single content creator featured hundreds of videos promoting gambling websites. Under its \u201cDecreto Dignit\u00e0,\u201d Italy prohibits all forms of gambling advertising, including indirect advertising. AGCOM also ordered Google to remove 630 of those videos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes this case unique is the relationship between Google and that creator. The two had entered into a commercial partnership agreement under the YouTube Partnership Program, under which they shared advertising revenue. Before entering into that agreement, Google had reviewed the channel: its main theme, the most-viewed and most recent videos, and metadata such as titles and descriptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google defended itself by invoking the liability exemption for hosting services. AGCOM countered that gambling activities fall outside the scope of European e-commerce rules. The Italian Council of State referred the matter to the Court of Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Court answered two questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does hosting gambling advertisements fall under the E-Commerce Directive?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Yes. Article 1, paragraph 5, subparagraph (d) of Directive 2000\/31 on electronic commerce (the E-Commerce Directive<\/a>) excludes gambling activities from its scope of application. According to the Court, that exclusion also extends to activities intrinsically related to gambling, including online gambling advertising. After all, Member States must be able to pursue their gambling policies in accordance with their own value systems, and advertising is part of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, hosting such advertisements falls outside the scope of that exemption. The Court ruled that the storage activity is not intrinsically linked to gambling: it consists solely of storing content provided by a user and is neutral with respect to what exactly is being stored. Hosting a gambling video is no different from hosting any other video. Consequently, that service does fall within the scope of the directive, and the exemption is, in principle, available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can Google invoke that exemption in this case?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

No, the Court ruled, given what Google actually did. The exemption under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive applies only to those acting as genuine intermediaries: service providers with a purely technical, automatic, and passive role, without knowledge of or control over the stored content. According to the Court, the requirements of knowledge and control are two separate, alternative conditions: if either is lacking, the service provider does not qualify for the exemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court found that, while reviewing the channel for the purposes of the partnership agreement, Google became aware of the substantive content of a series of videos. That review focused on the main theme, the most popular and most recent videos, the metadata, and the originality and quality of the content. Anyone screening such a channel could not reasonably be unaware that it revolved around gambling and contained a great deal of gambling advertising. As a result, Google did not play a neutral role, but rather an active one, and could not invoke Article 14. Whether Google could not have been unaware of this remains to be definitively determined by the Italian court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The pre-deal due diligence itself becomes the proof<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The crux of this ruling is surprisingly practical. It is not the algorithm, not the revenue sharing, and not the size of the platform that dooms Google, but rather the human or automated checks it carried out before signing the agreement. It is precisely the due diligence that a platform builds in to ensure it knows who it is doing business with that provides evidence that it knew what was on the channel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is a significant legal shift. The Court reaffirms its established position that knowledge of specific unlawful content causes the exemption to lapse (see, previously, CJEU, June 22, 2021, C-682\/18 and C-683\/18<\/a>, YouTube, and Cyando). But it sets the bar lower than expected: it is sufficient for the platform to determine the essential content of the videos through its own screening process. A full review of every video is not necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where the Court and its Advocate General differ<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This is where it gets interesting. In his opinion of November 27, 2025, Advocate General Szpunar reached a more nuanced conclusion. In his view, no single feature of the partner program\u2014not even the random sampling of videos\u2014in and of itself precluded Google from remaining an intermediary. He distinguished between \u201ccontent optimization\u201d (which does indeed preclude the exemption) and mere \u201cdisplay optimization\u201d (which does not), and classified Google\u2019s screening as falling into the latter, harmless category. He wished to leave the question of whether Google had specific knowledge entirely to the national court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court does not follow that line of reasoning. It links the knowledge directly to the screening investigation itself and immediately draws the following conclusion from it: anyone who views the main theme and the most popular videos of a gambling channel knows that it is about gambling. Whereas the Advocate General left some leeway for the trial court, the Court largely closes that leeway. The fact that the Court does not follow its Advocate General on this decisive point makes this ruling a stricter decision than the opinion suggested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A third way to circumvent the hosting exemption<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This ruling does not stand alone. It is the third decision in a short period of time in which the Court has further eroded the status of neutral intermediaries, each time through a different approach. A few weeks earlier, in the WebGroup Czech Republic and Coyote System case, the Court ruled that a platform loses its exemption as soon as its recommendation algorithm directs the dissemination of content in its own interest, even without any knowledge of that content. We discussed that line of reasoning earlier in our blog post on the question of whether a platform loses its liability protection as soon as an algorithm determines who sees what content<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Going back one step further, there is the ruling in which the Court held that the exemption is set aside entirely when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)<\/a> comes into play, the topic of our blog post about the end of the safe harbor in cases of GDPR violations<\/a>. When the three rulings are compared side by side, a clear pattern emerges: data collection through commercial screening, verification via the algorithm, and the primacy of the GDPR are three distinct breaking points, each of which affects a common platform practice. Anyone who relies on the hosting exemption today must take all three into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean under the successor to the directive?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The E-Commerce Directive is now partially obsolete. Articles 12 through 15 have been repealed and incorporated into Articles 4 through 6 and 8 of the Digital Services Regulation (Regulation 2022\/2065, also known as the DSA<\/a>). Article 14 of the directive corresponds to Article 6 of that regulation. The test developed here\u2014knowledge or control over the content\u2014therefore remains fully applicable under the new law. The ruling is thus not merely a historical footnote, but a guideline for the application of the DSA to commercial collaborations between platforms and creators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For online platforms with creator or affiliate programs.<\/strong> The message is uncomfortable: any substantive screening conducted prior to a commercial partnership can later be used against you. Anyone who evaluates a channel based on theme, quality, or originality to decide whether someone can join a monetization program is thereby building up knowledge that could undermine the hosting exemption. That doesn\u2019t mean you have to eliminate such checks, but it does mean you must have a response procedure in place: as soon as the screening reveals illegal content, you must act promptly to remove it or make it inaccessible. If you fail to do so, the protection afforded by Article 6 of the DSA for that content will lapse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For regulators and affected parties.<\/strong> This ruling opens up an enforcement pathway that goes beyond the traditional \u201cnotice-and-takedown\u201d approach. Where a commercial vetting process precedes the harm, that process itself can demonstrate the knowledge required to hold the platform liable. For sectors with strict advertising bans, such as gambling, tobacco, or certain financial products, this provides a useful starting point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For creators and influencers.<\/strong> A revenue model based on a platform is no free pass. Illegal advertising remains illegal, and the fact that the platform shares in the revenue does not change that. The underlying violation\u2014in this case, the creation of prohibited gambling advertisements\u2014remains the responsibility of the person who commits it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Is a video platform liable for illegal advertisements uploaded by users?<\/strong>
In principle, no, as long as the platform limits itself to the purely technical storage of that content and is unaware that it is illegal. As soon as the platform becomes aware of this, it must take prompt action; otherwise, the protection ceases to apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does a platform lose its protection by sharing advertising revenue with creators?<\/strong>
No, revenue sharing alone is not sufficient. According to the Court, the protection only ceases to apply when the platform, through a specific action\u2014such as screening a channel\u2014gains knowledge of or control over the content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does this ruling still apply now that the E-Commerce Directive has been replaced?<\/strong>
Yes. The liability rules for hosting services have been incorporated into the Digital Services Act (DSA). The standard applied by the Court in this regard continues to apply in full under the DSA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Justice makes it clear that a platform\u2019s due diligence can be used against it. Anyone who reviews a channel\u2019s content prior to a commercial partnership thereby gains knowledge of that content and loses the status of a neutral intermediary. For platforms, this means that screening and a robust takedown procedure must go hand in hand; for regulators, it opens up a new avenue for enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Do you have questions about platform liability, the DSA, or compliance with online advertising restrictions? Our lawyers advise platforms, advertisers, and regulators on matters related to IT law, media law, and digital regulations. Please feel free to contact us for an initial consultation regarding your case.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Een platform als YouTube is in beginsel niet aansprakelijk voor wat gebruikers uploaden, zolang het zich beperkt tot het louter opslaan van die inhoud. Maar wat als het platform v\u00f3\u00f3r het sluiten van een commerci\u00eble samenwerking het kanaal en de video’s van een creator gaat bekijken? Dan verliest het die bescherming, oordeelde het Hof van […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":103148,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[188],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dsa"],"yoast_head":"\nWanneer verliest een platform zijn hostingbescherming?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Een videoplatform dat een kanaal screent v\u00f3\u00f3r een reclamedeal verliest zijn hostingbescherming, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. Lees waarom en wat dit betekent.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/platform-hosting-liability-gambling-advertising\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Verliest een videoplatform zijn beschermde status zodra het een reclamedeal met een creator sluit?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Een videoplatform dat een kanaal screent v\u00f3\u00f3r een reclamedeal verliest zijn hostingbescherming, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. Lees waarom en wat dit betekent.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/platform-hosting-liability-gambling-advertising\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-19T20:48:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-19T21:02:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Verliest een videoplatform zijn beschermde status zodra het een reclamedeal met een creator sluit?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-19T20:48:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-19T21:02:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1666,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"DSA\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/\",\"name\":\"Wanneer verliest een platform zijn hostingbescherming?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-19T20:48:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-19T21:02:39+00:00\",\"description\":\"Een videoplatform dat een kanaal screent v\u00f3\u00f3r een reclamedeal verliest zijn hostingbescherming, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. Lees waarom en wat dit betekent.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Verliest een videoplatform zijn beschermde status zodra het een reclamedeal met een creator sluit?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"description\":\"Advocaten in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"width\":638,\"height\":479,\"caption\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/jorisdeene\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\",\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Joris Deene\"},\"description\":\"Advocaat-partner bij Everest Advocaten\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/joris-deene-5144096\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/en\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When does a platform lose its hosting protection?","description":"A video platform that screens a channel before entering into an advertising deal loses its hosting immunity, the Court of Justice has ruled. Read why and what this means.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/platform-hosting-liability-gambling-advertising\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Verliest een videoplatform zijn beschermde status zodra het een reclamedeal met een creator sluit?","og_description":"Een videoplatform dat een kanaal screent v\u00f3\u00f3r een reclamedeal verliest zijn hostingbescherming, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie. Lees waarom en wat dit betekent.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/platform-hosting-liability-gambling-advertising\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-07-19T20:48:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-19T21:02:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Verliest een videoplatform zijn beschermde status zodra het een reclamedeal met een creator sluit?","datePublished":"2026-07-19T20:48:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-19T21:02:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/"},"wordCount":1666,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["DSA"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/","name":"When does a platform lose its hosting protection?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-19T20:48:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-19T21:02:39+00:00","description":"A video platform that screens a channel before entering into an advertising deal loses its hosting immunity, the Court of Justice has ruled. Read why and what this means.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/pexels-zulfugarkarimov-33440447-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/platform-hosting-aansprakelijkheid-gokreclame\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Verliest een videoplatform zijn beschermde status zodra het een reclamedeal met een creator sluit?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","name":"ICT Lawyer","description":"Lawyers in IP, AI, IT, privacy & media","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization","name":"ICT Lawyer","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","width":638,"height":479,"caption":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/jorisdeene\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685","name":"Joris Deene","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Joris Deene"},"description":"Attorney-partner at Everest Attorneys","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/joris-deene-5144096\/"],"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103147"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103147\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":103150,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103147\/revisions\/103150"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}