As I have already outlined in this article, the train of judgments regarding the labeling of affiliates and commission payments is picking up speed. Now there is the Third Judgment on the subject.
Thus, the Regional Court of Hamburg has ruled that a portal that mediates real estate agents must inform users that the portal operator receives a percentage share of profit in the event of a commission agreement between the user and the broker.
It was common ground in the proceedings that the portal operator received a commission on success from at least one part of the brokers recommended by him. However, there was no clarification on this.
The Landgericht Hamburg therefore accepted the view of the Competition Centre and regarded the defendant’s advertising as misleading without any clarification on the commission.
In this regard, it stated:
“The advertising is misleading within the meaning of Section 5 UWG because it suggests to the reader that the broker recommendations made by the defendant are based on objective criteria and are uninfluenced by financial considerations. This will in any case be assumed by a not insignificant proportion of the Internet users addressed by the advertising. This is because the advertisement does not contain sufficient indications that the defendant receives a success commission for some of the brokers it recommends. Contrary to the view of the defendant, this is by no means self-evident.
”
Furthermore, there is also a breach of Section 5a para. 2 UWG, since the profit participation agreed with the brokers is an essential piece of information to be clarified.
Although the judgment is not final, it follows the case law of other courts and, in principle, the case-law on influencers.
