BGH Ruling on the Revocation Instruction in Distance Selling

Abstract Revocation Instruction is Sufficient – BGH, Judgment of 07.01.2026, Ref. VIII ZR 62/25

The VIII Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), responsible among other things for questions of sales law, has specified central requirements for revocation instructions in distance selling contracts with its judgment of January 7, 2026 (Ref. VIII ZR 62/25). According to the decision, it is sufficient – at least within the scope of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU) and its implementation in German law – if the revocation instruction links the right of revocation abstractly to the statutory requirements (in particular:consumer status and exclusive use of distance communication means). The entrepreneur does not have to determine or confirm in the instruction whether the specific buyer is actually a consumer.

This is relevant in practice, as disputes often arise about whether the 14-day revocation period (§ 355 BGB in conjunction with Art. 246a EGBGB) has begun. The BGH clarifies: The period begins when the consumer has been properly and understandably informed about the conditions, terms, and procedure for the revocation – an “individual assignment” of the buyer as a consumer is not required in the instruction.

Case: Car Purchased Online

The judgment was based on an online purchase of a new car. The buyer acquired a new car via distance selling from a car dealer in February 2022 at a price of 46,520 euros. The vehicle was handed over in December 2022.

The buyer received a revocation instruction that did not exactly correspond to the statutory model. It included the formulation, among other things:

“If you are a consumer and have concluded this contract exclusively using distance communication means (such as over the Internet, by phone, email, etc.), you have the right to revoke this contract within fourteen days without giving any reasons according to the following regulations.”

Additionally, it was pointed out that the buyer has to bear the immediate costs of returning the goods; a specific quantification of the return costs was not provided.

Revocation Only Months After Delivery – Dispute About the Start of the Period

In May 2023 – around six months after delivery – the buyer declared the revocation. In the appeal instance, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court ruled in favor of the buyer (Ref. 6 U 57/24). According to the Higher Regional Court, the revocation was still timely because the revocation period had not been set in motion: The instruction only informs abstractly about the prerequisites of the right of revocation, without specifically telling the buyer whether they are entitled to withdraw; the buyer must verify this themselves. That is not sufficient.

The consequence of this viewpoint: If there was no proper instruction, the revocation period generally extends by up to 12 months (§ 356 para. 3 BGB), so that revocation may still be possible long after the conclusion of the contract or delivery of the goods.

BGH: OLG Judgment Overturned – Abstract Instruction is Sufficient

The BGH overturned the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court’s decision. It clarified that a revocation instruction may and should generally state the statutory requirements for the existence of a right of revocation. It is sufficient if the instruction clearly and accurately informs that a right of revocation exists if the contract

• is concluded by a consumer (§ 13 BGB) and
• exclusively using distance communication means (§ 312c BGB).

There is no obligation for the entrepreneur to conduct a “status check” in the revocation instruction (i.e., bindingly declare whether the customer is a consumer in the specific case). According to the BGH’s view, it is sufficient that the consumer can assess for themselves whether the criteria provided apply to them.

Deviation from the Model is Not Automatically an Error

The senate also emphasized: A cancellation policy is not ineffective merely because it deviates from the statutory template. What is decisive is whether it fulfills the statutory information obligations and is formulated clearly and understandably for an average consumer. The statutory template does offer significant guidance and can reduce liability risks; however, its verbatim use is not mandatory.

Return costs: Lack of specification does not necessarily nullify the deadline

Finally, the Federal Court of Justice dealt with the notice regarding return costs. In principle, consumers must be informed about certain cost information before concluding a contract – in distance selling (Article 246a § 1 EGBGB). According to the Federal Court of Justice’s statements, the absence of a specific return cost amount did not automatically result in the cancellation period not starting, provided that the other obligatory information was properly provided.

Important for practice: Although missing or incomplete cost information does not prevent the start of the period in every case, incorrect or incomplete information can nevertheless trigger other legal consequences (e.g. disputes over cost bearing obligations, breaches of information duties, or consumer protection risks). Therefore, sellers should make cost information as complete and accurate as possible.

Classification and practical hints for businesses

The judgment brings more clarity for distance selling: Cancellation policies may refer to the statutory requirements without the entrepreneur having to “confirm” the consumer status in individual cases. Nevertheless, the following applies:

• Content accuracy is crucial: Instructions must meet statutory requirements.
• Comprehensibility is mandatory: Formulations should be designed so that consumers can understand them.
• Review all information obligations: Besides the cancellation policy, other information obligations (particularly under Article 246a EGBGB) must also be complied with.

Note: This article provides general information and does not replace individual consultation on a specific matter.

MTR Legal Attorneys advise in sales law.

Feel free to contact us.