The three-judge panel found for Eyeo on every point, however. The judges took note of the fact that Spiegel could have done something about ad-blockers. For instance, it could have shut ad-blocking users out from the Web content, linked advertising directly to the website’s HTML, or used a kind of anti-anti-advertising software that spoofs ad-blockers.
Spiegel said those options “would not be a long-term solution but rather result in a sustained race to stay ahead of the technological curve.” Still, the judges said the newspaper’s decision not to use them meant it wasn’t clear that the Spiegel website was a “unified offer” that had to be taken or left as a whole… More at ars technica.
Makes sense, but can someone explain to me how websites are supposed to make money when subscription services are not covering the costs?