Netherlands - DPG Media B.V.; Mediahuis Nederland B.V.; Mediahuis NRC B.V. v Knowledge Exchange B.V., trading as HowardsHome, 20 October 2026

Claimants in the principal appeal / defendants in the cross-appeal: DPG Media B.V.; Mediahuis Nederland B.V.; Mediahuis NRC B.V. ("Publishers")

Defendant in the principal appeal / claimant in the cross-appeal: Knowledge Exchange B.V., trading as HowardsHome ("HowardsHome")

Since 2001, HowardsHome had operated a digital media monitoring service that processed approximately 30,000 alerts per day derived from publicly available Really Simple Syndication feeds ("RSS Feeds"). In the alerts delivered to its customers, HowardsHome provided a hyperlink to the relevant publication, together with the title, a brief description and, where publicly available, a thumbnail image. HowardsHome made these alerts accessible to its customers through a dedicated digital portal.

The alerts included, among other content, news items originating from the Publishers. HowardsHome is alleged to have offered its customers content belonging to the Publishers that was not obtained through licensed purchases or authorised distribution channels, but rather extracted from RSS Feeds available on the open internet or acquired by means of scraping the Publishers' websites. The Publishers contend that this conduct infringes their exclusive rights of reproduction and of making their works available to the public.

Publishers (principal appeal): annulment of the first-instance judgment and grant of their original claims, i.e. injunctions, declaratory relief, damages, a detailed account of infringing acts, penalty payments of EUR 10,000 per violation or per day of non-compliance, and full costs of both instances.

HowardsHome (cross-appeal and amended claim): higher cost award for the first instance; a declaration that the Publishers acted unlawfully towards HowardsHome; and damages, jointly and severally, for the cessation of its services.

Publishers' appeal

On appeal, the Publishers argued that the first-instance court wrongly held that HowardsHome had not infringed their copyright, database right and press publishers' right.

HowardsHome's defence

HowardsHome relied on: (i) the temporary reproduction exception; (ii) the news and reporting exceptions; (iii) the quotation exception; (iv) the text and data mining ("TDM") exception; (v) a claimed ''negative'' reflex effect of the press publishers' right on copyright; (vi) the hyperlink and "very short extracts" exceptions of the press publishers' right; and (vii) abuse of a dominant position under competition law. In its counterclaim, it alleged that the Publishers had run a defamation and intimidation campaign towards its customers.

Appeal Court's Judgment

The appeal court set aside the first-instance judgment and held that HowardsHome had infringed the Publishers' copyright and press publishers' right. The database right claim and HowardsHome's counterclaim were dismissed.

Copyright

The appeal court accepted that the vast majority of the press publications are copyright-protected works whose copyright the Publishers own or can enforce. The alerts constituted reproduction and communication to a new public of the headlines, text extracts and thumbnails (CJEU Renckhoff, C-161/17). The temporary reproduction exception failed because the reproductions were the core of HowardsHome's paid service and had independent economic value. The news and reporting exceptions failed because HowardsHome is not a press medium.

Reversing the first-instance judgment, the appeal court rejected HowardsHome's reliance on the quotation exception: HowardsHome did not use the quotes in connection with its own statements or opinions, so the context requirement (CJEU Pelham, C-476/17 and CJEU Spiegel Online, C-516/17) was not met, and the commercial alert service is not a "press review". The quoting was also not fair and justified by a specific purpose, as the service competed with the Publishers' offering.

The TDM exception failed because this exception covers only acts of reproduction, not acts of communication to the public. Furthermore, selecting news items for customers is not an automated analysis technique and therefore does not fall within the definition of text and data mining. Whether the Publishers had made a valid rights reservation was therefore irrelevant, and the appeal court declined to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. Therefore, it remains unclear when a rights reservation is made validly under Dutch copyright law.

Obiter, and contrary to the first-instance court, the appeal court also held that HowardsHome's offering of its alerts service to businesses failed the three-step test, since the normal exploitation of press publications by the Publishers also includes licensing content for business use via LexisNexis and ArtikelPro. Therefore, HowardsHome's conduct interferes with the normal exploitation of the press publications by the Publishers and also unreasonably prejudices the Publishers' interest.

Database right

The claim was dismissed because the Publishers had not substantiated a substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents of their websites; investment in creating the content itself does not count.

Press publishers' right

Hyperlinks to freely accessible publications fell within the hyperlink exception. However, reversing the first-instance court, the appeal court held that alerts of up to 150 characters (excluding the headline), plus thumbnails, were too extensive to qualify as "individual words or very short extracts", since they enabled commercial exploitation, undermined the Publishers' business model and therefore undermined the effectiveness of the press publishers' right. 

Competition law and balancing of interests

HowardsHome's competition law defence failed for lack of substantiation. The Publishers' IP rights outweighed HowardsHome's freedom to conduct a business and freedom of information, as HowardsHome could have taken licences.

HowardsHome's counterclaim

HowardsHome's counterclaim was dismissed: the Publishers were entitled to enforce their rights and approach HowardsHome's customers, and their limited communications were not unlawful towards HowardsHome.