Storage media levy (SMV): AUME back-claims, refurbished devices, cloud storage and other demands

The storage media levy (SMV) has been established for years. Disputes have arisen and continue to arise because AUME (austromechana) seeks to open up new business areas via new developments such as cloud computing or the refurbishing of devices, and has also reclaimed export refunds already paid out. Besides that, AUME also takes action against manufacturers, importers and dealers who in its view have paid too little or no levy at all. Particularly critical: retroactive claims spanning several years. These topics have accompanied our advisory practice for years.

What the storage media levy is — briefly explained

The SMV is a lump-sum levy for private copies (§ 42b UrhG): anyone who manufactures a storage medium or first places it on the market in Austria owes a levy that is collected via the collecting society AUME and distributed to entitled parties — authors, performers, producers of phonograms and films.

The SMV typically hits:

• USB sticks, external hard drives and SSDs
• Smartphones, tablets, notebooks and PCs with integrated storage
• Storage media in multifunction devices (e.g. printers with internal storage function)

Manufacturers and importers must report monthly or quarterly to AUME and pay the levy. Anyone who doesn’t will later face back-claims.

SMV back-claims: when AUME asserts claims retroactively

AUME systematically audits manufacturer and importer circles. It also regularly seeks to open up new markets (cloud storage, refurbished etc.), even where these are not expressly covered by the wording of the statute. When potential claims are discovered — for instance because a business was unaware of its reporting duty or didn’t cover certain product categories — claims follow that can quickly reach high six-figure sums.

AUME regularly demands twice the autonomous tariff and also interest, which is particularly critical for new product categories. Decisive here is developing a tailored overall strategy. If no out-of-court, economically viable solution can be reached, new legal questions must also be clarified in court. We have the know-how and the necessary negotiation and litigation experience for this.

Possible defence approaches:

• Level of tariffs
• Levies already paid by third parties
• Storage-media character
• Limitation
• And many more

Anyone who receives an AUME request to report or an AUME claim should not hastily simply report and pay. Since enormous sums are often ultimately at stake, you should proceed strategically and have legal representation from the outset. Experience shows that the legal defence options are broader than they first appear — and the amounts at stake typically far exceed the legal fees of a sound review.

Refurbished devices: one of the central battlegrounds

Refurbished IT hardware — refurbished notebooks, smartphones, tablets — is a growth market. The legal question: does the SMV arise again on the resale of the refurbished device?

AUME argues in ongoing proceedings that every new placing on the market — including of refurbished devices — triggers a new levy obligation. Refurbished dealers and importers counter with the argument that the private-copy levy is systematically a one-off levy for the specific physical storage medium; a double levy contradicts the economic rationale of the regulation.

It is still not conclusively legally settled whether SMV is to apply to refurbished devices at all and — if so — at what level. This is particularly true for storage media in devices that have already been levied once in Austria. Accordingly, AUME’s claim for 100% of the tariff for refurbished devices (which adds up extremely under twice the autonomous tariff plus interest) appears vastly excessive. We represent clients from this market segment and are conducting a large, longer-running court case against AUME for one of them.

Cloud services: the Supreme Court’s December 2025 turn

Beyond classic hardware, it was disputed for years whether cloud services must also be included in the SMV obligation — after all, users increasingly no longer store their private copies on their own data carrier but in the cloud.

By decision of 16 December 2025, 4 Ob 15/25x, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of austromechana: cloud-storage services fall within the scope of the storage media levy, and the levy can be collected directly from the cloud provider. The Court relies on the 2022 CJEU decision, according to which cloud storage must be covered by the SMV regime in order not to unfairly disadvantage rights holders — the specific implementation is left to the member states, and Austria has opted for the direct claim against the cloud provider.

In our case annotation in ecolex 2025/153 we had still argued — also for want of a specific statutory rule — that a cloud provider does not place a storage medium within the meaning of § 42b UrhG on the market with its mere storage service. The Supreme Court decision now handed down does not follow this argument and engages in judicial development of the law in favour of AUME. The decision raises a series of follow-up questions: appropriate tariff level for cloud storage (AUME has just published high tariffs here), relationship to the hardware SMV already paid (the issue of double burden), application to cloud providers not based in Austria, international reach. These questions will occupy practice in the years to come — and they continue to leave affected cloud providers room for defence against excessive austromechana claims. It remains, in any case, an exciting development.

What manufacturers, dealers and cloud providers should do now

From our advisory practice it emerges that those concerned are not infrequently completely surprised by AUME claims and their amount. Here a strategy should be developed in good time and in some cases appropriate provisions made. If you come into AUME’s sights, caution is warranted — all steps should be cleared with a lawyer and a suitable strategy followed.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that from the SMV one may also have claims against AUME — for instance where devices with storage media for which SMV has already been paid are exported abroad.

Our role

We at Tonninger Schermaier & Partner have been representing manufacturers, importers and clients from the refurbished segment in SMV proceedings for years — both in pre-litigation engagement with back-claims and in ongoing AUME litigation, including currently a larger court case in a refurbished constellation. Dr Tonninger and Dr Albrecht have well-grounded know-how in developing strategies for their clients.

Anyone who has received an AUME request, or as a manufacturer, importer or refurbished dealer wishes to preventively clarify their legal position and risks, should seek legal support early. The amounts at stake here as a rule justify the legal review many times over.

This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice in any specific case.