© JackF – Adobe Stock
One particular case of unfair advertising was committed by a furniture store that accused a competitor of fraud. The furniture store had falsely claimed that the beds sold by the competitor were not made in Germany, but that “85% of them came from Poland”, in order to conclude: “This is customer fraud”.
Düsseldorf Regional Court follows ban application
Although the name of the competitor was not mentioned in the article, it was very easy to find out which company from the industry was meant by the information on the origin of the furniture store. After an unsuccessful warning, the challenged furniture company took the matter to court with the help of LHR in order to have the diffamatory comparative advertising prohibited by means of a temporary injunction. The Düsseldorf Regional Court granted the application in this respect (LG Düsseldorf, Beschluss vom 12.5.2023 – Az.: 34 O 31/23, rechtskräftig).
Groundless factual allegation leads to prohibition order
This is because the implication “This is fraud against the customer” in the advertisement is not a crude expression of opinion that might just be acceptable in the same way as reporting on suspected fraud, but an objectively verifiable factual claim that does not have to be accepted if it is false. And the review by the Düsseldorf Regional Court revealed that it is – false. The company accused in this way had “clearly not been convicted of fraud”. Since the accusation of fraud, which was unfounded in this respect, disparaged the company, the advertising with this statement was to be prohibited.
Severe consequences for non-compliance
Violations must be expected to have severe consequences: The court threatened an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or imprisonment for up to six months or – in the event of multiple or repeated infringements – up to a total of two years. This decision shows that it can certainly be worthwhile to take action against unfair advertising methods used by competitors. The injunction procedure offers the possibility of a quick remedy in this unpleasant matter.
The defendant immediately recognized the one order as the final ruling. The decision is therefore final. In contrast, the claims for information and damages have not yet been settled. These are significant in light of the serious allegations and are now being asserted separately.
Related posts
