The German Federal Supreme Court today ruled that companies may charge their customers a fee for payment via Sofortüberweisung or PayPal if the fee is charged solely for the use of these payment methods and not for any related use of a direct debit, bank transfer or credit card.

Content Hide

1. Facts of the case and progress of the proceedings to date

2. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice

2.1. Author: Marian Härtel

Key Facts

The Federal Court of Justice allows companies to charge fees for Sofortüberweisung and PayPal if they do not apply to other payment methods.
The plaintiff, Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs, found a violation of Section 3a UWG and Section 270a BGB.
The Regional Court initially upheld the claim, but the Court of Appeal later dismissed it.
The plaintiff's appeal was unsuccessful; the defendant did not violate Section 270a BGB.
The fee charged is not for the use of the means of payment, but for additional services.
Additional services include credit checks and informing the payee of the results.
The prohibition under Section 270a BGB does not prevent the charging of a fee for additional services.

Facts of the case and progress of the proceedings to date

The plaintiff is the Central Office for Combating Unfair Competition. The defendant organizes long-distance bus tours and advertises them on the Internet. It offers its customers four payment options, namely payment by debit card, credit card, Sofortüberweisung or PayPal. When choosing the payment methods “Sofortüberweisung” and “PayPal”, the defendant charges an additional fee depending on the respective fare.

The plaintiff considers this to be a violation of Section 3a of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) in conjunction with Section 270a of the German Civil Code (BGB) and is claiming injunctive relief against the defendant.

The district court upheld the claim(see this post for more information). On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeals dismissed the case (see this blog post).

Decision of the Federal Court of Justice

The plaintiff’s appeal, which was allowed by the Court of Appeal, was unsuccessful. The defendant did not violate § 270a of the German Civil Code by charging an additional fee for payment via Sofortüberweisung or PayPal.

Pursuant to Section 270a Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), an agreement that obligates the debtor to pay a fee for the use of a SEPA core direct debit, a SEPA business-to-business direct debit, a SEPA credit transfer or a payment card is invalid. For the use of payment cards, pursuant to Section 270a sentence 2 of the German Civil Code, this shall only apply to payment transactions with consumers to which Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions is applicable.

If the payment method “Sofortüberweisung” is chosen, a transfer from the customer’s account to the recipient’s account takes place. This is a SEPA credit transfer within the meaning of Section 270a sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), even if this credit transfer is not initiated by the customer but by the operator of the “Sofortüberweisung” payment service on behalf of the customer. However, according to the findings of the Court of Appeal, the fee demanded by the defendant when the “Sofortüberweisung” payment option is selected is not demanded for the use of this transfer, but for the involvement of the payment initiation service, which provides further services in addition to initiating the payment. For example, it checks the payer’s creditworthiness and informs the payee of the result of this check so that the payee can provide its service before the payment is received.

Even if the payment option “PayPal” is chosen, a SEPA credit transfer or a SEPA direct debit within the meaning of Section 270a sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) or a card-based payment transaction within the meaning of Section 270a sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) may occur if the payer’s PayPal account does not have sufficient funds and must be topped up by a credit transfer, direct debit or credit card charge. However, also in this case, according to the findings of the Court of Appeal, the defendant does not charge its customers for the use of these means of payment, but solely for the involvement of PayPal, which processes the payment from the payer’s PayPal account to the recipient’s PayPal account by transferring e-money.

However, the charging of a fee for additional services shall not be precluded by the prohibition of agreeing on a fee for the use of a direct debit, bank transfer or payment card within the meaning of Section 270a of the German Civil Code.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.

Tags: Bank Bgh Blog Consumer Credit card Debtor Federal court internet Lawsuit Regulation service