© Andy Nowack – 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.
You can make a lot of money quickly with investment law
Investment law is one of the areas in which lawyers with business acumen and few scruples can quickly earn a lot of money.
Due to the often high investment sums, there are 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.
The basic prerequisite for the money blessing is, of course, a case – preferably a scandalous one – in which as many investors as possible can be advised out of court or, at best, represented in court proceedings. If such a case does not exist, the resourceful “investor protection lawyer” does everything in his power to create one.
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. Legal advice is therefore often a recommendable step. However, the persistence with which certain law firms solicit clients in disregard of basic legal regulations also shows how lucrative the “investor protection” business area is.
Cases of unlawful solicitation/reporting are piling up – over 300 cases in recent years
In recent years, we have conducted well over 300 proceedings for our clients against initiators of unlawful advertising or reporting, including not only dubious media, but also Stiftung Warentest, the Google search engine and, regrettably, numerous colleagues; the majority of these proceedings have been successful.
If matters cannot be resolved out of court, legal action is unavoidable. Fortunately, however, a high success rate can also be recorded here, as courts have now recognized the damage that can be caused to investors, not least by unlawful statements in public, and therefore immediately prohibit them by way of interim legal protection.
In recent years, we have highlighted the following cases in particular in our LHR magazine:
- 3.1.2014: LHR obtains advertising ban against “investor protection lawyers” at Frankfurt Regional Court
- 22.4.2014: Further success of LHR against “investor protection lawyers”: 2nd injunction for unfair advertising
- 11.7.2014: LHR obtains advertising ban against “investor protection lawyers” due to non-existent “protection association”
- 28.7.2014: “Anlegerschutzkanzlei” makes 6.6 million euros in revenue with 3,500 almost identical and unsuccessful lawsuits
- 22.10.2014: LHR obtains temporary injunction due to Chantage (unlawful threat of press publication)
- 5.1.2015: LHR obtains preliminary injunction against Stiftung Warentest before Munich Higher Regional Court
- 20.5.2015LHR obtains ban against “consumer protection association” due to misleading advertising for law firm
- 10.6.2015: Munich Higher Regional Court issues temporary injunction against Google due to infringing search result
- 27.7.2015: LHR obtains another advertising ban against “consumer protection association” – this time due to disparaging Facebook status message
- 30.10.2015: Hamburg Regional Court issues further interim injunction against “Anlegerschutzkanzlei” due to misleading e-mail
- 19.10.2015: LHR obtains further ban against “investor protection law firm” due to sweeping disparagement of a business model
- 7.12.2015: LHR obtains preliminary injunction before the Munich Higher Regional Court against real estate magazine for false reporting on issuing house
- 11.1.2016: LHR obtains preliminary injunction before the Hamburg Regional Court against “Anlegerschutzkanzlei” due to blanket description of an investment model as “dubious”
- 29.6.2016: LHR obtains preliminary injunction against “investor protection lawyer” for intentionally misleading advertising
- 11.7.2016: LHR obtains temporary injunction against faked press inquiry
- 2.9.2016: LHR obtains preliminary injunction against “investor protection lawyer” due to disparaging, misleading advertising on lawyer platform
- 21.12.2016: LHR successful before the Federal Court of Justice: Client advertising by leading investor protection law firms punishable defamation
- 1.2.2017: LHR obtains preliminary injunction against investor protection lawyer due to misleading Google AdWords ad
- 7.2.2017: LHR obtains preliminary injunction against unlawful client advertising with unfounded allegations of fraud
- 21.2.2017: LHR erwirkt Urteil vor dem LG München I: Bekanntes Wirtschaftsmagazin darf haltlosen Verdacht auf “Anlagebetrug” nicht weiter verbreiten
- 28.2.2017: LHR obtains ban before Düsseldorf Regional Court: Well-known weekly magazine may no longer disseminate “suspected fraud”
- 24.4.2018: LHR obtains temporary injunction against Swiss business newspaper for false allegation
- 31.8.2018: LHR obtains judgment against “investor protection lawyer” for public misrepresentation
- 21.3.2019: Ban against YouTube advertising video of an “investor protection law firm” also confirmed in the main proceedings
Current case: Press release from investor protection law firm about false company
In a recent case, an investor protection law firm already known to us from numerous other cases wanted to “strike back” and obtained an interim injunction against one of our clients before a regional court due to an allegedly incorrect press release. However, the press release hastily issued by the law firm did not name the client by mistake, but another company, which of course did not agree with this false statement.
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.
Related posts
