Already a few times I had to tell clients that one should be very careful when one communicates – possibly even as a legal layman, legal views to his clients. This has at least one PR effect that could be reconsidered. Recently, the Federal Court of Justice has also had to consider whether this can also be relevant under competition law by the UWG.

The BGH concluded that information suitable for deception within the meaning of Section 5 para. 1 Sentence 2 Case 2 UWG may not only be statements of fact, but may also be expressions of opinion under certain conditions. In that case, it is relevant for the question whether statements on the legal situation of Paragraph 5(5) of the 1 UWG is decisive in the way in which the consumer views the trader’s statement, taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case, in particular the manner in which the statement is expressed. In the event that it is apparent to the public concerned that it is a legal view expressed in the context of legal proceedings or defence, a statement of opinion lacks the appropriateness necessary to carry out the offence of deception. Deception.

On the other hand, paragraph 5(5) of the 1 UWG statements in which the trader claims a clear legal situation with regard to consumers, which does not in fact exist, provided that the customer in the customer in which the customer in which is addressed does not see the statement as a statement of a legal opinion, but as a statement. Similarly, objectively incorrect legal information provided by a trader, which he gives in response to an express request from the consumer, is liable to mislead and influence the consumer. In such cases, the legal views of competitors, which may also be expressed publicly, could be admonished.