I'm curious how effective this law is. What is the threshold for "not hiding commercial purpose"? It doesn't seem like a very high one from that translation (though that could just be a language thing.)
Especially when you consider targeting kids, is the result of this law actually effective in making it clear to them that something is an advertisement?
Quite effectively in the "classic media space", it kept "Schleichwerbung" (paid, but unmarked as such, content, and the mentioned evil forms of product placement) at bay in the major media (newspapers, TV, radio and their respective online sites). There have been some scandals when someone did try to fool the system, but you always get these. Mostly these cases additionally involved corruption.
Regarding the "new form of media" aka clickbait youtube junk, weird blogs etc., however, it has not held up, for a couple of reasons:
- these participants often don't have imprints so it makes filing a lawsuit pretty difficult
- filing a lawsuit according to UWG is allowed only for competing companies (and they have to be competing with the advertiser, in the same areas of business!) and consumer protection agencies. No one likes an internet shitstorm for "going with the lawhammer after 16 year old youtube kids".
- there are just too many small-scale offenders, it's not worth the effort to go after them
Especially when you consider targeting kids, is the result of this law actually effective in making it clear to them that something is an advertisement?