Overview of the Munich Regional Court’s decision on online advertising of prescription drugs
By order dated May 29, 2024 (Case No. 37 O 2040/24), the Munich Regional Court I significantly restricted online advertising for a prescription weight loss drug. The case concerned the public promotion of Semaglutide, better known under the brand name “Ozempic”, on the websites of a mail-order company. The decision underscores the high relevance of advertising law for medicinal products in the digital sales context and highlights the considerable risks of improper product advertising. The following provides an in-depth look at the background and key legal aspects of the ruling.
Medicinal Products Advertising Act and Prescription Drugs
Scope and Objectives of the HWG
The Medicinal Products Advertising Act (HWG) sets strict regulations for public advertising of medicinal products. Especially for prescription drugs like Semaglutide, the advertising framework is substantially limited by §10 para. 1 HWG and §12 HWG. The legislator intends with these restrictive provisions to offer special protection of sensitive consumer interests – including protection against misleading, trivializing, or self-medication promoting statements, particularly for products with significant side effects and misuse potential.
Limits of Online Advertising
The focus of the Munich proceedings was the specific design of the website content. According to the court’s review, the representations were evidently capable of encouraging medically unjustified use among a broad audience. Besides product presentation, especially the ordering and supply bypassing the classic prescription process were emphasized. In the chamber’s view, this approach transfers deliberate risks, which the legislator explicitly aimed to address through the two-tier system (doctor and pharmacy), into the online domain.
Legal Considerations and Key Assessments of the Court
Potential for Misleading and Consumer Protection
For the Munich Regional Court I, the primary concern was the significant potential for misleading consumers – both regarding the approved uses of the product and due to the low barriers to access. The chamber pointed out in its reasoning that such advertising blurs the distinction between medical indication and lifestyle motivation.
Furthermore, the court rejected the notion that these were mere factual statements about the drug. Rather, the advertising presentation had a sole focus: increasing sales opportunities through targeted consumer manipulation.
Competition Law Consequences
The ruling also highlights the ongoing significance of fair competition law complementing the medicinal advertising regulations. Competitors and consumer associations can pursue injunction claims under §§ 8, 3, 3a UWG against relevant violations. A particular feature of the case was that the advertising was not carried out by a traditional pharmacy but by a mail-order company – underscoring the growing importance of e-commerce in the pharmaceutical market.
Application of the Decision to Other Cases
Although the current decision primarily concerns the drug Semaglutide, the considerations can be generalized: advertising for prescription drugs outside the permitted framework remains associated with considerable liability and sanction risks. The increasing shift of sales models and marketing activities into the digital realm compels companies to strictly comply with medicinal advertising regulations and to carefully legally review all communication content.
Outlook and Further Considerations
Importance for Companies and Advertisers
The decision marks another milestone in case law regarding medicinal advertising and underscores that legal advertising restrictions fully apply, especially in the digital context. Companies that market or advertise pharmaceutical products should be aware of the tight limits – particularly as this sector remains a focus of regulatory authorities, consumer organizations, and competitors.
Note on Ongoing Proceedings and Case-Specific Considerations
Against the background of ongoing proceedings and possible further developments at the intersection of drug distribution and advertising, reference must be made to the presumption of innocence, the limited perspective of a single case ruling, and the dynamic interpretative practice. The present explanations are essentially based on the published press release of the Munich Regional Court I (see www.juraforum.de/news/landgericht-muenchen-verbietet-online-werbung-fuer-abnehmspritze_262776).
In conclusion, it should be noted that the complex issues surrounding legally compliant product advertising and digital pharmaceutical distribution will shape future procedures and legislative initiatives. For companies, investors, and individuals confronted with these or similar matters, a well-founded legal assessment is becoming increasingly important. Further information and a personalized evaluation are available in the IP Law Legal Advice section of MTR Legal.
