Purpose
The skill reviews and drafts the contractual level of the data economy: the conditions under which a data holder provides data to a data recipient, the calculation of the compensation and the review of unilaterally imposed clauses under Art. 13. It keeps the two German standards of review separate — the Union-law abuse control of Art. 13 and the standard terms review of §§ 305 ff. BGB — and assigns each challenged clause to the correct standard.
Inputs
- Draft contract or set of clauses with identification of the unilaterally imposed clauses
- Roles: data holder, data recipient, user; size class of each party
- Date of conclusion of the contract; for legacy contracts: term, indefinite or end date
- Calculation basis of the compensation demanded (costs, investments, margin)
- Whether the data recipient is an SME or a non-profit research organisation
- Whether the provision is based on Art. 5 (request by the user) or on a voluntary agreement
Sub-agent architecture
The Researcher obtains the text of the provision, recitals, any model contractual clauses under Art. 41 and Commission guidelines on the calculation of the compensation under Art. 9(5). The Drafter assigns each clause to the catalogues of Art. 13(4) and (5) and formulates compliant alternatives. The Reviewer checks the temporal applicability under Art. 50, the demarcation from the standard terms review and whether the assertion “unilaterally imposed” is actually substantiated.
Process
1. Determine the standard of review — Art. 13 or §§ 305 ff. BGB
Both regimes may be applicable alongside each other, but they are not congruent:
| Feature | Art. 13 Data Act | §§ 305 ff. BGB |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of application | B2B; clauses on data access, data use, liability and remedies for data-related obligations | all pre-formulated contract terms |
| Trigger | Clause unilaterally imposed | Clause pre-formulated for a multitude of contracts and imposed |
| Standard | gross deviation from good business practice in data access and use or breach of good faith (Art. 13(3)) | unreasonable disadvantage contrary to good faith (§ 307 BGB) |
| Catalogues | black list para. 4, grey list para. 5 | § 308, § 309 BGB — in B2B via § 310(1) only indicative effect |
| Legal consequence | Clause does not bind the other party | Clause invalid, contract otherwise valid (§ 306 BGB) |
Two clarifications that save disputes:
- Art. 13(2): Clauses that comply with mandatory provisions of Union law or that reflect the Union law provisions applicable in the absence of a rule are not deemed unfair.
- Art. 7(2): Clauses that exclude, deviate from or alter the effect of user rights under Chapter II are for that reason alone not binding on the user — without an unfairness review.
2. Check the temporal applicability of Chapter IV (Art. 50)
- Contracts that were after 12.09.2025 concluded: Art. 13 applies.
- Contracts that were on or before 12.09.2025 concluded: Art. 13 applies from 12.09.2027, provided the contract is open-ended or its term ends no earlier than ten years after 11.01.2024.
For existing contracts, therefore, the term clause must first be assessed before unfairness is disputed.
3. Check provision conditions under Art. 8
If the data holder is obliged to make data available to a data recipient, it must do so on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and transparent terms. Practical consequences:
- Different terms for comparable data recipients must be justified; non-discrimination is subject to documentation requirements.
- The data holder may not make the provision of data conditional on the granting of more extensive rights of use to the recipient's own data if this grossly contradicts good business practice (link with Art. 13(5)(b)).
- Exclusivity agreements concerning data subject to a right of access must be critically examined.
4. Calculate consideration under Art. 9
Art. 9(1): Any consideration agreed between the data holder and the data recipient in a B2B relationship must be non-discriminatory and reasonable ; it may include a margin.
Under Art. 9(2), in particular the following must be taken into account:
- the costs incurred for making the data available — in particular formatting, electronic dissemination and storage;
- investments in the collection and generation of the data, whereby account must be taken of whether other parties have contributed.
Under Art. 9(3), the consideration may depend on the volume, format and nature of the data.
Cap under Art. 9(4): If the data recipient is an SME or a non-profit research organisation without partner or linked undertakings that are not SMEs, the consideration may not exceed the costs under paragraph 2(a) — i.e. no margin and no investment surcharge.
Under Art. 9(7), the data holder must disclose the basis of calculation in such detail, so that the recipient can assess compliance with paragraphs 1 to 4. A flat-rate charge without a calculation record is therefore vulnerable to challenge.
5. Work through the clause catalogue of Art. 13
Always unfair (Art. 13(4) — black list) if the clause has as its object or effect:
- a) exclusion or limitation of the liability of the imposing party for intent or gross negligence;
- b) exclusion of the other party's remedies in the event of non-performance or exclusion of the liability of the imposing party in the event of breach of duty;
- c) sole right of determination of the imposing party as to whether the data supplied comply with the contract, or as to the interpretation of the contractual terms.
Presumed unfair (Art. 13(5) — grey list) if the clause has as its object or effect:
- a) unreasonable restriction of the remedies or the liability, or extension of the liability, of the disadvantaged party;
- b) access to and use of the other party's data in a manner that significantly harms that party's legitimate interests — in particular in the case of sensitive business data, trade secrets or intellectual property rights;
- c) prevention of the use of the data provided or generated by that party;
- d) prevention of termination within a reasonable period;
- e) prevention of obtaining, during the term or within a reasonable period after termination, a copy of the data provided or generated;
- f) termination by the imposing party with an unreasonably short notice period, except for serious grounds;
- g) substantial unilateral change of the price, type, format, quality or quantity of the data without a valid justification specified in the contract and without a right of termination for the other party.
Regarding letter g, Art. 13 clarifies: reservation-of-amendment clauses in open-ended contracts remain permissible if there is a valid justification specified in the contract, the counterparty is informed in good time and it has a right of termination.
6. Dispute resolution and enforcement
- Art. 10 — dispute resolution bodies decide on disputes concerning the consideration and the conditions of provision. In Germany, the Federal Network Agency authorises these bodies under § 5 DADG ; failure to provide the information under § 5(2) sentence 3 DADG is punishable by a fine under § 15(1) no. 1 DADG.
- Art. 38, 39 — complaint to the Federal Network Agency and judicial remedy.
- The consequence of invalidity under Art. 13(1) operates by way of objection in civil proceedings: the party concerned is not bound by the clause; a decision by an authority is not required.
Deterministic calculation
The appropriateness of the consideration is not a matter of arithmetic, but the contractual periods are. The calculator in ../../../scripts/legal_calc/ calculates notice and transition periods as well as the limitation period for claims for reimbursement of excessive charges:
# Kündigungsfrist aus dem Datenlizenzvertrag: 3 Monate ab 31.03.2026
python -m scripts.legal_calc.cli frist --ereignis 31.03.2026 --menge 3 --einheit monate --land BY
# Regelverjährung § 195 BGB für Rückforderung überhöhter Gegenleistung
python -m scripts.legal_calc.cli verjaehrung --entstehung 12.05.2026 --kenntnis 12.05.2026
Sources
Legal acts
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2854, Art. 7(2), Art. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 38, 39, 41, 50 — EUR-Lex
- DADG § 5, § 15
- § 305 BGB, § 306 BGB, § 307 BGB, § 310 BGB, § 195 BGB
Commentaries and literature
- Hennemann/Steinrötter, Data Act – Handkommentar, Art. 8, Art. 9, Art. 13.
- Specht-Riemenschneider/Hennemann, Data Act, Kommentar, Art. 13 (relationship to standard terms review).
- Grüneberg/Grüneberg, BGB, §§ 305 et seq. (standard in business transactions).
- Ulmer/Brandner/Hensen, AGB-Recht, § 307 BGB (indicative effect of §§ 308, 309 in B2B).
Case law
For the review of standard terms in business transactions, the settled case law of the BGH on the indicative effect of the clause prohibitions is to be consulted; the specific decision is to be verified in juris or Beck-Online before use [unverifiziert – prüfen]. There is as yet no case law on Art. 13 of the Data Act; every decision cited must be substantiated.
Output format
DATA-ACT-KLAUSELPRÜFUNG — <Vertrag> — <Datum>
I. Rahmen
Parteien / Rollen: Dateninhaber <…> | Datenempfänger <…>
Größenklassen: <…>
Vertragsschluss: <Datum>
Kapitel IV anwendbar: [ja ab <Datum> / nein — Art. 50]
II. Klauselmatrix
Nr. | Klausel | einseitig auferlegt? | Art. 13 Abs. 4 | Art. 13 Abs. 5 | §§ 305 ff. BGB | Ergebnis
<…>
III. Bereitstellungsbedingungen Art. 8
Fair / angemessen / diskriminierungsfrei / transparent: <Bewertung>
Dokumentation der Gleichbehandlung: [vorhanden / fehlt]
IV. Gegenleistung Art. 9
Kalkulation offengelegt (Abs. 7): [ja / nein]
Kostenbestandteile (Abs. 2 lit. a): <…>
Investitionen (Abs. 2 lit. b): <…>
Marge: <…>
KMU-/Forschungsdeckel Abs. 4: [einschlägig — nur Kosten / nicht einschlägig]
Ergebnis: [angemessen / überhöht um <…>]
V. Änderungsvorschläge
Klausel <Nr.>: statt „<…>" → „<konforme Fassung>"
VI. Durchsetzung
Streitbeilegung Art. 10 / § 5 DADG | Beschwerde Art. 38 | Klage Art. 39
Bußgeldrisiko: <§ 15 DADG>
VII. Risiko: 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Begründung>
VIII.Quellenverzeichnis
Risks / typical errors
- Art. 13 applied to existing contracts. For contracts concluded before 13.09.2025, Chapter IV applies only from 12.09.2027 and only under the conditions of Art. 50(6).
- "Unilaterally imposed" assumed without examination. Art. 13 presupposes unilateral imposition; negotiated clauses fall outside its scope. The submission must be made, not merely asserted.
- Art. 13 and §§ 305 et seq. BGB conflated. The catalogs, standards, and legal consequences differ; every objection must be assigned to one standard.
- Margin calculated vis-à-vis an SME. Art. 9(4) caps the consideration vis-à-vis SMEs and non-profit research organizations at the costs under paragraph 2(a).
- Flat-rate fee without proof of calculation. Art. 9(7) requires such detailed disclosure that the appropriateness can be reviewed.
- Fee charged to the user instead of the data recipient. Vis-à-vis the user, provision under Art. 4(1) and Art. 5(1) is free of charge.
- Liability exclusion for gross negligence left in place. Art. 13(4)(a) is the black list — non-binding without balancing.
- Case law fabricated. There is as yet none on Art. 13; every decision must be substantiated or marked as
[unverifiziert – prüfen].