The Darmstadt Regional Court has made an important ruling that directly affects the practice of advertising in online retail. The focus is on the issue of misleading advertising, particularly when it comes to the availability and pricing of products.

Content Hide

1. The court’s reasoning

2. Additional considerations

3. Conclusion

3.1. Author: Marian Härtel

Key Facts

The Darmstadt Regional Court has issued a ruling on misleading advertising in online retail.
The ruling concerns the availability and pricing of products in online advertisements.
The case concerned a balcony power plant that promised electricity for 5 cents.
The court ruled that the advertising for the balcony power plant was misleading.
The perspective of the average consumer is decisive for the evaluation of advertising.
Transparency and truthfulness in advertising are of great importance to consumers.
Online retailers must review advertising practices with regard to actual availability and prices.

The court’s reasoning

The court dealt with a case in which a balcony power plant was advertised. The advertising flyer, which was also available online, promised that consumers could use the product to generate electricity for 5 cents. This was emphasized by a sample calculation and the illustration of a 5 cent coin.

The court found that this advertising was misleading. When reading the flyer, an average consumer would assume that they can purchase a product that is available at the advertised conditions – in this case a balcony power plant for 750 euros that produces electricity for 5 cents. This assumption is underlined by the presentation of the “plug & play” set.

The court also pointed out that the perspective of the average consumer is decisive. The seller’s argument that the sample calculation merely served to demonstrate the economic viability of producing electricity for 5 cents was not considered sufficient to change the objective recipient perspective.

Additional considerations

The court also took into account that the flyer was from 2021. It was found that an average consumer might well assume that the offer is still current as long as no new status is available. In view of the known changes in electricity prices and the prices of solar panels in recent years, the seller should have been particularly careful and should not have distributed the flyer.

Conclusion

This ruling by Darmstadt Regional Court underlines the importance of transparency and truthfulness in advertising. It shows that consumers can legitimately expect advertised products to be available at the stated conditions. For online retailers, this means that they need to carefully review their advertising practices and ensure that they accurately and clearly display the actual availability and prices of their products.

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: Advertising Consumer Judgment Transparency