”
Federal Court of Justice decision of 29 April 2024 (I ZR 147/22)
\n\n
On 29 April 2024, in proceedings I ZR 147/22, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the requirements under which a business association can assert claims under unfair competition law when the conduct affects not the association itself, but an individual member. The issue was whether, and to what extent, an association has standing to sue when a member is impaired in the market environment by disparaging statements.
\n
Initial situation: statements about an association member as a competition-law problem
\n
Disparagement as an anti-competitive impairment
\n\n
At the core were statements that, by their content, may be capable of damaging a company’s reputation in the course of business. Depending on context, the substance of the statement, and its market relevance, such statements may constitute an unfair commercial practice, in particular if they are aimed at devaluing a competitor or that competitor’s services.
\n
Association action instead of individual action
\n\n
The case was characterized by the fact that it was not the affected company itself that brought the action, but a business association to which the company belongs. This raised the question whether the association has a sufficient basis for its own claim and/or authority to conduct the proceedings in order to assert injunctive relief on the basis of the alleged disparagement of a member.
\n
Key legal issue: standing to sue under unfair competition law
\n
Standard for the standing of business associations
\n\n
The BGH dealt with the requirements to be imposed on the standing of associations in unfair competition law. In principle, associations may pursue claims if they meet the statutory requirements, in particular the necessary personnel, material, and financial resources as well as sufficient representation of the affected market participants.
\n
Impact on a member and the association’s interest
\n\n
Of significance was whether the challenged disparagement of an individual member at the same time constitutes an impairment that the association may pursue collectively in the interest of its members. The BGH focused on the connection between the specific statement being challenged and the competitive interests that the association safeguards in accordance with its statutes.
\n
Classification: disparagement and the limits of permissible statements
\n
Statement of fact, value judgment, and context
\n\n
For statements made in the course of business, the legal assessment regularly depends on whether they are verifiable statements of fact or value judgments and how the statement is to be understood from the perspective of the addressed public. The overall context in which a statement is made is also decisive (e.g., environment, audience, recognizable purpose).
\n
No shifting forward of allocations of blame
\n\n
Insofar as statements tie in with allegations that refer to misconduct or legal violations, the limits of permissible communication are particularly narrow. In this context, it must always be considered that assessing the truthfulness and permissibility of a statement depends on the specific circumstances; blanket attributions of guilt can be legally problematic. Where matters have not yet been concluded, restraint is additionally required; the presumption of innocence applies.
\n
Significance of the decision for business associations and market participants
\n
Enforcement of collective interests
\n\n
The decision illustrates that, under certain conditions, an impairment of an individual member may at the same time be a matter that an association may pursue within the scope of performing its tasks. This further delineates the role of business associations in safeguarding unfair-competition-law standards in the market environment.
\n
Differentiation from purely individual conflicts
\n\n
At the same time, it remains decisive whether the subject matter of the dispute has a sufficient connection to the collective interests of the association’s members. Not every dispute affecting an individual member automatically justifies action by the association; the statutory requirements for standing to sue and the specific competitive relevance are determinative.
\n
Source note and procedural context
\n\n
This article is based on reporting on the BGH decision of 29 April 2024, case no. I ZR 147/22, published at: https://urteile.news/BGH_I-ZR-14722_BGH-Klagebefugnis-eines-Wirtschaftsverbands-bei-Anschwaerzung-eines-seiner-Mitglieder~N33943. Insofar as factual situations are connected with allegations, it should be noted that the mere presentation of an allegation does not constitute a final determination of facts; for points not finally clarified by a legally binding decision, the presumption of innocence must be applied.
\n
Point of reference for companies and associations
\n\n
Constellations in which disparaging statements influence competition and at the same time raise the question of enforcement by associations or affected companies regularly touch on key aspects of unfair competition law. If clarification is needed in this regard, an assessment within the framework of legal advice in competition law by MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte may be considered.
“
