By judgment of 09.10.2014 (The. 11 The 15/14) has the 11. Civil Chamber of the Landgericht Stuttgart rejected the claim of Daimler AG against the SWR.

The Daimler AG had wanted to achieve, that the SWR re-broadcast of the documentary "pittance on the assembly line - How tariffs are undermined" must refrain imagery used. An active for the SWR journalist had applied for the purpose of a covert investigation with a temporary employment agency. These borrowed it to another company, had signed with Daimler AG a contract for work on logistics services. So it came to the use of journalists in a production hall at Daimler AG in Stuttgart-Untertürkheim for packaging cylinder heads. During his tenure from 05. to 18.03.2013 made the journalist with four hidden cameras secretly recorded video footage and used it for the report, the most 13.05.2013 "The First" was broadcast on ARD program. The Daimler AG took the view, that the SWR this material should not radiate, because the procurement was unlawful, the video would not play unlawful conduct and Daimler AG will hurt by the charisma of the image material considerably in their personal rights.

In support of its decision, the district court stated, that the production of the video footage was indeed unlawful, because the journalist had violated the house rules of Daimler AG. However, the Daimler AG must accept the radiance of the image material, because the report serves a clearly overriding public interest in information. The report was informed, that the use of labor in the context of so-called. Could lead to contracts for work, that despite this work of equal performance and integration into the production process considerably lower wages than the parent- and received temporary employees of the company, which at least in part by Grants and subsidies („Hartz-IV“) would be to strengthen. This would be perceived by large sectors of the population as a drastic maladministration. With regard to this grievance exists an overriding public interest in information, In contrast, the disadvantages, which resulted from the illegal procurement of information, would have to resign. The broadcast of the video material in the context of the report was therefore not unlawful, but by the expression- and broadcasting of the SWR (Art. 5 GG) justified. The Daimler AG can therefore not require any omission of future broadcasting.