District Court of Frankfurt am Main, October 2, 2014, Case No.: 2-3 O 445/12
Please note: The TMG (Telemedia Act) has been replaced by the DDG (Digital Services Act). However, the decision is likely still relevant in content. You can find an overview here. Please note: The TMG has been replaced by the DDG, but the decision likely remains relevant. An overview can be found here.
The obligation to provide a legal notice (imprint) requires the website operator to provide details that allow for quick electronic contact and immediate and efficient communication. This means that the website’s legal notice must include information that enables fast electronic contact and direct communication. The website operator must provide both an email address and a telephone number.
However, not every phone number meets these requirements. Ideally, the country and area code should also be included in the imprint.
Caution is also advised when providing premium-rate numbers in the legal notice. The rate for such numbers should be explicitly and clearly stated. Additionally, it is important not to list only a premium-rate number, but also a basic-rate number. If a premium-rate number is provided exclusively, the rate charged must not be excessive, as this could render the phone number non-compliant with the imprint obligations.
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
In the case presented here, the District Court of Frankfurt am Main had to decide whether the use of a premium-rate service number in the legal notice complied with imprint obligations when the cost per minute could reach up to EUR 2.99.
Facts of the Court Case
The parties in this case were competitors in online retail, each operating a commercial website.
The plaintiff ran an online store selling various products, including bicycle trailers. The defendant also sold bicycle trailers through the domains „www…de“ and „http://…de.“www...de" and "http://...de" Bicycle trailer for sale.
The defendant’s website listed the company name, legal form, address, and representative in its legal notice. However, the phone number provided was a premium-rate service number with costs up to €2.99 per minute. The „Contact“ section also referred to an email address and the premium-rate service number. There was no contact form; instead, a link to the user’s email program was provided.
Court Injunction Against the Defendant
On September 19, 2012, the court (Case No.: 2-03 O 380/12) issued a preliminary injunction against the defendant. It prohibited the defendant from referring only to a premium-rate number alongside an email address in the provider identification section for business purposes. On October 2, 2012, the plaintiff was asked to file a principal lawsuit, which was done in the District Court of Frankfurt am Main.
Ruling of the District Court of Frankfurt am Main
The court partially upheld the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff had a right to stop the defendant from using the premium-rate service number in the legal notice. This claim was based on Sections 3, 4 No. 11, 8 of the UWG (German Unfair Competition Act) and Section 5(1) No. 2 of the TMG.
Imprint Obligation for Quick and Efficient Communication
According to Section 5(1) No. 2 of the TMG, service providers are required to provide information that enables quick and efficient electronic communication. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has determined that, in addition to an email address, further contact methods must be offered, but these do not necessarily have to include a telephone number. A contact form could also suffice.
Violation of Imprint Obligations Due to Premium-Rate Number
The court ruled that a premium-rate number does not constitute efficient communication, especially when high fees of up to €2.99 per minute are incurred. Such costs could deter consumers from making contact, which contradicts the objectives of the European Directive 2001/31/EC.
Excessive Costs for Consumers
The service provider is not permitted to profit from consumer contact, particularly not by charging fees for a service number. This violates the obligation to enable free or low-cost communication.
Defendant’s Arguments Not Convincing
The defendant argued that the costs were justified, as there are no advisory salespeople in online retail like there are in physical stores. The court rejected this argument, noting that all competitors are subject to the same rules.
The court was also not convinced by the defendant’s argument that the premium-rate number was permissible because no contract had yet been concluded with the customer. Consumer protection applies at every stage of communication, even before a contract is finalized.
Conclusion of the Ruling
The court ruled that the use of a premium-rate service number in the legal notice violated legal requirements and was therefore inadmissible. However, the plaintiff’s claims for damages were dismissed, as no specific damage could be proven.
Source: District Court of Frankfurt am Main
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Note: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, the complexity and ever-changing nature of the subject matter make it necessary to exclude liability and warranty. This article cannot replace legal advice.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
You can create a personalized and free imprint using our imprint generator.
Attorneys in Cologne provide advice and representation in internet law.
One Response