# OLG Hamburg on the Admissibility of Comparative Advertising > The Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg ruled on the admissibility of comparative advertising in its judgment of July 2, 2026. Source: https://www.mtrlegal.com/en/olg-hamburg-admissibility-comparative-advertising/ · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-26 --- The judgment of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg) of July 2, 2026 – Az. 5 U 25/25 (case no. 5 U 25/25) – concerns the admissibility under competition law of comparative advertising for dishwasher tablets by reference to test results published by Stiftung Warentest. The central issue was whether a company violates the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG, German Act Against Unfair Competition) by making an advertising claim that emphasizes the superiority of its product over a competing product. The applicant sells various machine dishwashing products. The respondent also manufactures cleaning products and sells conventional dishwasher tablets, among other products. ## Advertisement Featuring Comparative Advertising In December 2024, the respondent published an advertisement for its conventional dishwasher tablets in a magazine. It placed its product at the center of the advertisement and used the emphatic claim that its tablets had performed better in the test than those of a competitor. The advertisement also referred to a Stiftung Warentest test published in issue 2/2024. An asterisk referred readers to more detailed explanations of the test result. ### Reference to Test Results The explanatory text stated that Stiftung Warentest had tested 15 conventional dishwasher tablets. The advertised product ranked second with an overall score of 2.3. The applicant’s conventional competing product performed significantly worse. ## Applicant Alleges Consumer Deception The applicant considered the advertising to be anti-competitive. In particular, it objected that the superiority of the advertised product was emphasized in an impermissible manner and that the claim gave the target audience the impression that the product had significantly outperformed the competing products overall. It regarded this as misleading consumers and as an impermissible disparagement of its product through comparative advertising. The Landgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Regional Court) initially granted the application for a preliminary injunction. By judgment of March 20, 2025, it upheld its decision. The respondent appealed against that decision to the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg. ## OLG Hamburg Finds No Fault with Advertising By judgment of July 2, 2026, the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg amended the Regional Court’s decision; the judgment is not final. It set aside the preliminary injunction issued by the Landgericht Hamburg and dismissed the application for its issuance. It also ordered the applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings. The court concluded that, when considered in the context of its overall presentation, the advertising at issue constituted neither a misleading commercial practice nor impermissible comparative advertising. ### No Unfair Disparagement In particular, the Higher Regional Court did not consider the emphatic advertising claim to constitute unfair disparagement of the competing product. In the court’s view, the claim was a pointed but permissible summary of how the compared products had actually performed in the test. The respondent’s appeal was therefore successful. The preliminary injunction previously issued could not be upheld. ## Overall Assessment of the Advertisement A key aspect of the judgment’s reasoning concerns how the advertising claim at issue should be assessed from the perspective of the consumers addressed. The Higher Regional Court clarified that an advertisement may not simply be reduced to its most prominently highlighted claim. Instead, the decisive factor is how the advertisement is perceived as a whole. This applies in particular where an eye-catching claim is expressly linked to supplementary information by an asterisk. In the present case, the advertisement made a clearly visible reference to the Stiftung Warentest test. The accompanying asterisked text explained - the type of product that had been tested, - the results achieved by the advertised product, and - how the competing product had performed. In the court’s view, the prominent claim therefore could not be considered in isolation. Rather, the explanations in the asterisked text also had to be included in the assessment under competition law. An average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect could understand and contextualize the advertising claim together with this information. ## No Misleading Effect from Reference to the Test The court also considered whether the advertising could give consumers an inaccurate impression of the test results. The decisive factor in the assessment was that the advertisement referred to a specific test and reproduced the key results in the asterisked text. The ratings cited corresponded to the underlying test result. The advertised product had in fact ranked second and achieved an overall score of 2.3. The conventional competing product had received a significantly lower rating. ## Actual Difference in Test Results The claim regarding the superiority of the advertised product was therefore based on an actual difference in the test results. The court found no sufficient indications that the advertising distorted the result in a manner that would mislead consumers. It must be taken into account that, under the case law on advertising based on test results, not every emphatic advertising claim is impermissible. Rather, the decisive question is whether the advertising alters the substance of the test’s findings and thereby creates an inaccurate impression among the target audience. In this regard, the Higher Regional Court clarified that reproducing a test result in the advertiser’s own words may be misleading, particularly where the advertiser alters the test’s findings to its own advantage. No such impermissible alteration could be established in the present case, however. ## Significance of the Asterisked Notice Particular significance was attached to the asterisked notice linking the highlighted advertising claim to the detailed information about the test result. The court took into account that, in advertising designed in this manner, consumers generally expect to find more detailed information about a claim in the associated footnote or explanatory text. A clearly visible notice can therefore help place an advertising claim in its factual context. In this specific case, the reference to the test was clearly visible. The supplementary text explained the underlying product categories and ratings with sufficient clarity. As a result, the advertisement did not merely convey an isolated assertion regarding the superiority of the advertised product but established a comprehensible connection to a published test result. The decision thus demonstrates that supplementary information may be significant when assessing advertising under competition law. This requires, however, that the information actually relates to the highlighted claim and remains sufficiently accessible and comprehensible to the consumers addressed. ## No Impermissible Disparagement within the Meaning of § 6 UWG Another key aspect of the decision concerns the limits of comparative advertising under § 6 UWG (German Act Against Unfair Competition). Under § 6 Abs. 2 UWG (section 6(2) of the German Act Against Unfair Competition), comparative advertising is unfair under certain circumstances. This applies in particular where it creates a likelihood of confusion, unfairly takes advantage of or impairs a competitor’s reputation, or disparages or denigrates the competitor’s goods. The Higher Regional Court found no such infringement in the present case. In the court’s view, the claim at issue was phrased emphatically. However, it did not cross the threshold into impermissible disparagement of the competing product. The decisive factor was that the claim described the products’ differing levels of success in the test. It therefore referred to an actual and verifiable comparative result. A pointed advertising claim is not impermissible merely because it particularly emphasizes the advertiser’s own performance and clearly identifies the weaknesses of a competing product. Rather, the decisive question is whether the presentation remains objectively related to the comparison or unfairly denigrates the competitor or its product. In the present case, the court did not consider the threshold for impermissible disparagement to have been crossed. ## Position within Existing Case Law The decision is consistent with the general principles established by the highest courts in their case law on advertising based on test results and comparative advertising. A party advertising a product by reference to a published test result may generally refer to the rating actually achieved. The advertiser is not required to conduct its own quality assessment, provided that the advertising is based on a corresponding award or a test result actually achieved. ### Advertising Claim Must Be Accurate The advertising claim must, however, remain accurate in substance. It must neither distort the result nor create an inaccurate impression of the product group tested, the scope of the test or the product’s actual performance. The judgment of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg also demonstrates that the assessment under competition law does not depend solely on the wording chosen by the advertiser. The factual background to the claim, the design of the advertisement and the supplementary information made available to consumers are equally important. ## Conclusion With its judgment of July 2, 2026, which is not yet final, the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg strengthens companies’ ability to highlight their products in advertising by reference to objective test results. The decision shows that even emphatic and comparative advertising claims may be permissible, provided that they are based on accurate facts, do not distort the substance of a test and comply with the limits imposed by § 6 UWG. For practical purposes, the overall assessment of the advertising is particularly important. A prominent advertising slogan must not be assessed in isolation if a clearly visible notice refers to supplementary explanations. Conversely, an asterisked notice cannot automatically render a misleading or impermissible claim lawful. Rather, the supplementary information must be capable of placing the claim in its proper factual context. When using test results, companies should therefore ensure that they clearly identify the product category tested, reproduce the results accurately and disclose the source and date of the test transparently. Comparative claims should be based on verifiable differences in performance and must not become an unjustified disparagement of the competitor. The judgment thus demonstrates that the dividing line between permissible emphasis in advertising and unfair comparative advertising must be determined by reference to the advertisement’s specific presentation and its actual substantive message. For questions concerning the admissibility under competition law of product-related claims or advertising, MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte offers [legal advice on competition law](https://www.mtrlegal.com/rechtsberatung/wettbewerbsrecht/).