BGH decides on the scope of the claim for removal under competition law)

The First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible for competition law among other things, has to decide on the question of whether a consumer association’s claim under competition law for removal includes the repayment to the consumers concerned of money withheld on the basis of invalid general terms and conditions.

Facts:

The plaintiff is the umbrella organization of German consumer associations. The defendant organized a festival. To pay at the festival site, visitors could purchase a wristband and top it up with money. The defendant offered a refund of unused funds in accordance with its terms of use, which read as follows: “A refund fee of €2.50 will be charged when the remaining balance is paid out by the event portal after the festival.”

The plaintiff considers the charging of a refund fee to be unfair and is claiming reimbursement of the retained fees from the defendant to the consumers concerned.

Previous process history:

The landgericht dismissed the action. The Higher Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.

The Higher Regional Court assumed that the plaintiff was not entitled to repayment of the fees withheld by the defendant to the consumers concerned. The clause on the charging of a reimbursement fee was indeed a general business condition pursuant to Section 307 para. 1 sentence 1, para. 2 No. 1 BGB is invalid, as the defendant does not provide an independent remunerable service with the reimbursement of unused amounts of money, but fulfills an existing contractual obligation. The use of the invalid general terms and conditions also constitutes an unfair commercial act under the aspect of a breach of law pursuant to Section 3 para. 1, § 3a UWG. The plaintiff’s claim for (consequential) removal pursuant to Section 8 para. 1 sentence 1 UWG does not, however, extend to the repayment to consumers of the money wrongly withheld. The state of disruption relevant under competition law lies in a misconception on the part of consumers about the content of the contract; it ends when they are informed of their right to reclaim unduly withheld sums of money. However, the plaintiff had not requested such information from the consumers concerned. However, the requested repayment does not affect the collective interests of consumers covered by the protective purpose of the competition law claim for elimination, but falls under the protective purpose of individual claims under the German Civil Code. The situation is no different insofar as the plaintiff also relies on misleading consumers.

With the appeal allowed by the Higher Regional Court, the plaintiff continues to pursue his claims.

Lower courts:

Rostock Regional Court – Judgment of December 15, 2020 – 3 O 1091/19

OLG Rostock – Judgment of November 15, 2023 – 2 U 15/21

The governing regulations are:

• 3 para. 1 UWG

(1) Unfair business practices are not permitted. […]

• 3a UWG

Anyone who violates a statutory provision that is also intended to regulate market behavior in the interests of market participants and the violation is likely to significantly impair the interests of consumers, other market participants or competitors is acting unfairly.

• 8 para. 1 sentence 1 and para. 3 No. 3 UWG

(1) Anyone who carries out a commercial act that is unlawful under § 3 or § 7 may be sued for removal and, if there is a risk of repetition, for injunctive relief. […]

(3) The claims under paragraph 1 are due to: […]

3. the qualified consumer associations entered in the list pursuant to Section 4 of the Injunctions Act and the qualified entities from other Member States of the European Union entered in the list of the European Commission pursuant to Article 5 (1) sentence 4 of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 1) […].

• 307 para. 1 sentence 1 and 2 no. 1 BGB

(1) Provisions in General Terms and Conditions are invalid if they unreasonably disadvantage the contractual partner of the user contrary to the requirements of good faith. An unreasonable disadvantage may also result from the fact that the provision is not clear and comprehensible.

(2) In case of doubt, an unreasonable disadvantage is to be assumed if a provision

1. cannot be reconciled with the fundamental ideas of the statutory provision from which the deviation is made […].

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.