The controversy surrounding copyright levies on refurbished devices, and thus ultimately on used devices, has recently taken a back seat. This is partly due to the levy claims on providers and operators of AI solutions, which are to be introduced as a flat-rate levy. However, the claims for levies targeting refurbishers remain and are currently being formulated to avoid misunderstandings. For providers, the key question remains when and under what circumstances a product becomes subject to levies.

What justifies the levy?

Some (EU) countries have made it quite simple for themselves in this regard: Based on existing legal regulations, they do not distinguish between the first sale of used devices and the sale of new devices when levying. The only decisive factor is that the device is suitable for making, storing, and reproducing private copies. However, this cannot remain the case. This is because no distinction is made between used and refurbished devices. In addition, the amount of the levy is linked to how long a device is in use, i.e. how many private copies are made during the device's life cycle. Refurbishment extends the life cycle. Nevertheless, the copyright levy for the PC, tablet, or smartphone has already been paid once.

Legal enforcement

In some countries, this situation is accounted for by applying a reduced rate for refurbished devices. In Austria and other countries, however, this is clearly rejected. Here, the exact nature of the refurbishment is examined, as well as where the device was originally sold as new. In addition to marketing, consideration is also given to whether the refurbishment is genuine, involving the replacement of components or whether a used device has merely been cleaned and tested for functionality to make it suitable for resale. Depending on the circumstances, either no levy is charged, or the full levy is charged without reduction.

Claims are also enforced through legal action. A whole series of court rulings in this relatively new area of compliance are reaching a decision. For example, the Court of Appeal in The Hague recently upheld the lawsuit brought by Dutch rights holders against a refurbisher in its entirety. However, this only happened after a lengthy appeal process, which highlights the complexity of the case. The ruling clearly describes the conditions that must be met in terms of marketing and refurbishment to establish a levy obligation. The convicted refurbisher must now provide information retroactively for several years, possibly dating back to 2019.

If you would like to be informed of all developments, please book our Alert Service.