Burden of proof in misleading online advertising

Burden of proof in misleading online advertising 1

Two law firms have argued in a case of misleading online advertising that has just been decided by the Federal Court of Justice in the context of a non-admission appeal. The defendants appeared on the Internet under the name “Lawyer’s Forum Patient Lawyers”, although the planning for a supra-regional forum of several lawyers was still in the planning stage.

However, the Federal Court of Justice partially overturned the decision of the Kammergericht Berlin and clarified:

 

The defendant is not burdened with proof of the existence of the working group, since the burden of presentation and proof of the deception, that is to say also of the non-existence of the working group, affects the applicant as the claimant. In view of the defendant’s designation of alleged members of the working group, it was therefore for the applicant to prove that, in the absence of
Membership of the lawyer G. did not exist a working group in the sense used by the Court of Appeal at the time of the advertising.

 

Otherwise, the decision does not give much away, but it can be read here. It is precisely the difference between the untrue assertion of facts that is interesting in this matter.

Related Articles

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Kommentare
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wie kann ich Ihnen helfen? Das folgende interactive Formular führt Sie durch den Prozess, mich einfach und sicher zu kontaktieren!

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Send this to a friend