No contractual binding through online click in dental treatment contracts
In a decision by the Munich District Court (Judgment of 02.07.2024, Ref. 231 C 1839/22), the question was addressed as to which legal requirements must be met for the conclusion of a dental treatment contract via digital platforms. The court made it clear that a mere click on “Order with obligation to pay” in the online portal of an intermediary service provider does not necessarily result in a binding treatment contract between patient and dentist.
Background of the case
In the present case, a patient contacted a dental practice via an internet-based platform. The platform allowed users to request cost estimates for dental services and provided a secure communication channel. After the dental practice had issued an offer, the user clicked on “Order with obligation to pay.” Subsequently, however, the practice did not carry out the requested treatment, stating that several factors—particularly a prior examination and informed consent—had not yet been fulfilled. The patient then demanded the contractual treatment or alternatively sought damages.
Legal analysis of the decision
No immediate offer to provide medical treatment
The court examined whether the use of the platform and initiation of the ordering process already constituted a legally binding agreement for the implementation of the dental procedure. It followed the established jurisprudence that, for a medical treatment contract as per Section 630a BGB, far more is required than merely filling out an online form. The conclusion of individual, often complex treatment services typically requires personal preliminary examinations, comprehensive patient information, and discussion of medical specifics.
In its judgment, the court pointed out that the layout of the intermediary platform—including the “Order with obligation to pay” button—does not, in the court’s opinion, constitute an express declaration of intent aimed at concluding a contract for the disputed service. In particular, there was a lack of sufficient specificity regarding the object of service and the patient consultations and information sessions that are mandatory for medical treatments.
Differentiation between platform-based mediation and treatment contract
The judgment further examines the distinction between the contractual relationship with an online intermediary platform and the separately concluded contract with the respective service provider. Interaction with an online platform may result in a service contract between the user and the platform operator, but it does not replace the physician’s duty to provide information nor the personal declarations between patient and treating practice required for a treatment contract.
Impact on patient rights and business risks
For patients, this approach provides additional legal certainty, as no binding commitment to a treatment arises without prior personal contact and medical consultation. For practices and providers of digital health services, it follows that special care must be taken in the design of online communication to ensure transparency and legal certainty.
Practical consequences for digital referral processes in healthcare
Need for protection when concluding medical treatment contracts
The decision confirms the high standards stipulated in Section 630e BGB regarding medical information requirements and the necessity of personal contact. This protects patients from hasty contract conclusions and misunderstandings about the scope of services and associated risks. At the same time, providers are shielded from excessive claims for ‘online orders’ of medical services as long as complete doctor-patient communication has not taken place.
Guidance for marketplace operators and healthcare professionals
The decision by the Munich District Court suggests that online platforms acting as intermediaries between patients and service providers should clearly differentiate their communications with customers: It should be made clear that any specifications or clicks merely trigger an appointment or offer expectation process, but do not result in a legally binding treatment contract.
Relevance for companies and investors in the digital health market
The increasing digitalization of health services significantly increases the complexity of civil-law contractual relationships. Investors and companies in the healthcare sector, in light of this and similar decisions, are well advised to design the interfaces between patients, platforms, and medical service providers with legally secure transparency.
Conclusion
The decision by the Munich District Court brings clarity for all parties involved in the digital health sector: Clicking on a supposedly ‘binding’ order button on an online platform is not sufficient to establish a treatment contract. Personal interaction, collection and assessment of medical findings, and individualized information remain indispensable prerequisites for an effective treatment contract—even in the digital age.
If you have further questions regarding the contractual structuring and processing of digital mediation and treatment processes, the contacts at MTR Legal are available to assist you.
Source: Judgment of AG Munich, Ref. 231 C 1839/22, Status: 02.07.2024
