© olly – Fotolia.com
Time and again we report on cases of unfair advertising by “investor protection law firms” or other media that are – actually or only ostensibly – committed to consumer protection.
Investment law is a lucrative field for enterprising lawyers.
Due to the often high investment sums, there are accordingly numerous potential clients whose “support” does not require individually coordinated legal work in individual cases due to the comparability of the cases, but can often be “provided” with the help of ready-made letters and statements of claim. In addition, many investors have legal expenses insurance that covers the costs of legal advice – regardless of its success.
Current judgment: “Investor protection lawyer” named wrong company in client advertisement
In proceedings that have now been ongoing for over 2 years, an investor protection law firm that we already know from numerous other cases wanted to “strike back” and obtained a temporary injunction against one of our clients before a regional court due to an allegedly incorrect press release. In the press release (client advertising) hastily issued by the law firm, however, they then accidentally named not our client but another company, which of course did not agree with this false assertion.
Following an unsuccessful warning, the regional court again immediately issued a temporary injunction for unfair, disparaging advertising (LG Hamburg, Beschluss v. 2.6.2016, Az. 312 O 247/16). The law firm faces a fine of up to EUR 250,000 for non-compliance. The decision is not final. The amount in dispute was set at EUR 20,000. We reported here:
Lawyer refuses to issue closing statement
As the investor protection law firm refused to recognize the preliminary injunction as a final settlement, proceedings on the merits became necessary. The Regional Court of Hamburg ordered the law firm and the lawyers working there personally both to cease and desist and to pay the costs of the warning and final letter (LG Hamburg, Urteil v. 28.8.2018, Az. 312 O 410/16).
Deliberately or unequivocally untrue statements are not subject to freedom of expression
Even after holding an oral hearing and therefore also after hearing the other side with the plaintiff, the court was of the opinion that the statement that an interim injunction had been issued against the plaintiff was unlawful.
The court emphasized that value judgments and factual assertions are protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression insofar as they are opinion-based. However, deliberately untrue facts or facts whose falsity is beyond doubt at the time of the statement do not fall under the protection of Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Grundgesetz.
In the event of non-compliance, the law firm and the lawyers concerned face a fine of up to EUR 250,000. The decision is not legally binding. The amount in dispute was set at € 20,000.00.
Lawyer Arno Lampmann from the law firm LHR:
“It cannot be said often enough: sometimes there are good reasons to doubt the prospects of success of an investment. These do not even have to be due to bad faith on the part of the provider. It is therefore often advisable to seek legal advice. However, the persistence with which certain law firms advertise for mandates in disregard of legal regulations also shows how lucrative the “investor protection” business area is. Lawyers earn their fees regardless of the outcome of the “advice” they provide, which is often also covered by legal expenses insurance. It is therefore all the more pleasing that the courts are taking the interests of the companies concerned seriously and are immediately putting a stop to unlawful measures.”
Related posts
