Discount details based on the RRP and the provisions of § 11 Para. 1 PAngV
Pricing promotion in retail regularly operates in the tension between effective marketing and the requirements of the Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV). In a case before the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Case No. 6 U 92/25), the central question was whether an advertising statement referring to a “discount” on the recommended retail price (RRP) constitutes a “notification of a price reduction” within the meaning of § 11 Para. 1 PAngV.
The decision thus concerns the scope of the informational obligations regulated in § 11 Para. 1 PAngV, particularly whether such a reference to the RRP necessarily requires indicating a “previous price” as stipulated by the regulation.
Starting point of the legal dispute
Advertising representation with reference to the RRP
The subject of the proceedings was a product advertisement where the advertised sale price was compared with a higher reference value. This reference value was labeled as the RRP. Additionally, the price deviation was communicated as a “discount.”
The decisive point of contention was whether this representation constitutes a legal disclosure of a price reduction or merely a comparison of the current sale price with a manufacturer’s recommendation.
Controversial issue: Information obligation according to § 11 Para. 1 PAngV
§ 11 Para. 1 PAngV relates to the “notification of a price reduction” and requires – in simplified terms – additional transparency about the lowest price demanded by the entrepreneur within a certain period before the reduction. The complainant derived from the discount communication that these requirements should be triggered.
Key statements of the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Case No. 6 U 92/25)
Discount on RRP as a reference – not a “price reduction” within the meaning of § 11 Para. 1 PAngV
The Higher Regional Court of Cologne did not evaluate the challenged advertisement as a notification of a price reduction within the meaning of § 11 Para. 1 PAngV if the discount information expressly refers to the RRP.
What was decisive was that the RRP does not reflect the price previously actually demanded by the advertising company, but rather serves as an externally set guideline value. This situation thus differs from the classic scenario in which a company reduces a previously valid own price and highlights this reduction in advertising.
Distinction from price reductions based on own previous prices
According to the decision, the application of § 11 Para. 1 PAngV depends on whether the advertising is understood by the public as communicating a reduction of the company’s own former price. If, on the other hand, it is merely a recognizable comparison to the recommended manufacturer price, the notification of a price reduction by the entrepreneur, as required by the text of the regulation, is lacking.
This focuses the norm on the cases where a company communicates a reduction of its own price system and thereby can create a particular risk of misleading regarding the actual savings.
Implications of the decision for price promotion
Transparency requirements in price comparisons
The decision illustrates the differentiation between (1) the communication of an own price reduction and (2) a price comparison with an external reference price. The latter does not trigger the specific obligations under § 11 Para. 1 PAngV just because the advantage is labeled as a “discount,” provided the reference to the RRP remains clearly identifiable, according to the view upheld by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne.
Relevance for the assessment under competition law
Even if § 11 Para. 1 PAngV was not considered applicable in the specific context, price promotion must regularly be measured against the standards of competition law. The assessment under competition law depends, on a case-by-case basis, on how a specific statement is understood and whether it is capable of causing relevant misconceptions about price advantages. The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne mainly addresses the issue of specific informational obligations under the PAngV in RRP-related discount communication.
Classification and further context
Decision related to a specific advertising design
The assessment is tied to the specific design of the advertisement and the understanding it conveys to the public. It is crucial, in particular, whether the reference is clearly recognizable as the RRP, thereby revealing the character of a comparison standard, but not the reduction of a previously demanded price by the company.
State of proceedings and reference to sources
The presentation is based on the published reports on the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Case No. 6 U 92/25). What is decisive are the reasoning conclusions in the official or court publication. As long as further proceedings are pending in other situations, the presumption of innocence applies; an assessment always depends on the individual case and the underlying circumstances.
Outlook: Need for clarification on price indications and discount communication
Price indications and the presentation of price advantages are frequent starting points for competition law disputes. Those who work with RRP comparisons, discounts, or price comparisons in sales are regularly confronted with the question of which transparency requirements apply in the specific format and how risks can be evaluated under the applicable regulations. If clarification is needed in this regard, legal guidance in the field through MTR Legal can be pursued in the context of Legal advice in competition law.
