# Free Medical Advice Violates the HWG > OLG Frankfurt classifies free medical advice offered as a primary service in obesity treatment as a prohibited benefit under § 7 HWG. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/free-medical-advice-violates-hwg/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-28 --- The [Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main)](https://ordentliche-gerichtsbarkeit.hessen.de/presse/keine-kostenlose-aerztliche-beratung-neben-medizinischer-adipositasbehandlung) classified advertising free medical advice in connection with medical obesity treatments as the unfair promotion of a prohibited benefit (OLG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of September 3, 2026 – 6 U 60/26 (case no.)). In the court’s view, such an advisory service generally falls within [§ 7(1) Heilmittelwerbegesetz (HWG, German Act on Advertising in the Health Care System)](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/heilmwerbg/__7.html) if it is offered as a separate primary service. ## Advertising Medical Obesity Treatments The applicant develops and markets medical services for the treatment of obesity. Its offering includes procedures to reduce the size of the stomach as well as other treatments aimed at reducing body weight. The respondent offers comparable services through an online platform that it operates. In direct connection with initiating specific medical treatments, it advertised a completely free consultation. The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main) had initially dismissed the application for injunctive relief filed in summary proceedings. The applicant appealed this decision. ## Appeal Before the Competition Law Panel Successful The competent 6th Civil Panel of the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main allowed the appeal. In its assessment, the respondent’s contested advertising unfairly infringed the prohibition on promoting benefits when advertising the treatment of pathological conditions in humans. The proceedings concerned obesity requiring medical treatment. ### Consumers Expect Medical Advice from a Physician For the classification under competition law, the decisive factor was how the relevant target audience understood the advertising claim. The Panel found that the advertisement promoted medical advice from a physician. In particular, the court took the following circumstances into account: - The platform offered advice on specific treatment options. - The range of services presented did not relate merely to cosmetic procedures or nutritional advice. - The advertised treatments included at least minimally invasive procedures that may only be performed by physicians. - In view of this context, the target audience expected advice from the treating physician rather than from non-medical staff. According to the Panel, the advertisement was therefore not to be understood as merely providing general information about the range of services. ## Medical Advice as a Benefit with Monetary Value § 7(1) HWG generally covers benefits and other promotional gifts in the form of goods or services. According to the decision, this includes any benefit with monetary value for which the recipient is not charged. In the court’s assessment, a prospective patient received such a benefit through the advertised medical advice. This advice was directly connected with the marketing and initiation of specific medical treatments. The Panel therefore classified it as a prohibited benefit within the meaning of the Heilmittelwerbegesetz. ## Exception for Information and Advice Does Not Apply The respondent expressly relied on § 7(1) no. 4 HWG. Under that provision, benefits may be permissible if they consist of providing information or advice. ### Exception Requires an Ancillary Service The Panel did not follow the interpretation advanced by the respondent. In the court’s view, taking its legislative history into account, the statutory exception must be understood as permitting information or advice to be provided only as an add-on and thus as an ancillary service. In this respect, the court found that the legislature had made a drafting error. The provision had to be correctly understood as meaning that, by way of exception, a benefit may be permissible if information or advice is provided as an add-on. However, in the Panel’s assessment, the medical advice advertised in the specific case was not merely supplementary to another service. Rather, it was itself a primary service. The requirements for the exception under § 7(1) no. 4 HWG were therefore not met. ## Decision in Preliminary Injunction Proceedings The judgment was issued in preliminary injunction proceedings and is not subject to appeal. However, it does not have conclusive binding effect in any subsequent proceedings on the merits. A different decision on the substance remains possible in such proceedings. The judgment was preceded by the decision of the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main of March 20, 2026 – 3-10 O 14/26 (case no.), which dismissed the application for preliminary injunctive relief against the contested advertising. ## Significance for Competition Law The decision highlights the importance of the specific presentation of advertising claims for medical services. The decisive factor is not only the terminology used but also the type of service that the relevant target audience expects in light of the overall context. If medical advice from a physician is advertised as a separate primary service free of charge, this may constitute an impermissible benefit under § 7(1) HWG. Companies that market medical services or operate corresponding online platforms can obtain individual [legal advice on competition law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/wettbewerbsrecht/) from MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte regarding the competition law classification of their communications.