Landgericht Ingolstadt (Ingolstadt Regional Court) has prohibited the operator of an online shop from referring customers who assert statutory warranty claims directly to the manufacturer of the purchased product. The decision was handed down as a judgment by the court’s chamber for commercial matters (LG Ingolstadt, Final Judgment of 24 July 2026 – 1 HK O 1352/25). The judgment is not yet final; an appeal against the decision of Landgericht Ingolstadt may be lodged with Oberlandesgericht München (Munich Higher Regional Court). The action was brought by Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (vzbv), which is registered on the list of qualified entities.
Statutory Warranty Claim Following the Purchase of a Household Appliance
Malfunction Within the Statutory Warranty Period
The dispute arose from the purchase of a fridge-freezer through the defendant’s online shop. The customer had purchased the appliance for EUR 899.99 in February 2024.
The household appliance was designed to emit an alarm if the door remained open for an extended period, thereby posing a risk of an increase in temperature. In June 2025, however, the warning signal sounded even though the door was closed and could no longer be switched off. The buyer informed the seller of the malfunction, following which several emails were exchanged.
Referral to the Manufacturer
In a message dated 30 June 2025, the defendant stated that the manufacturer offered an on-site repair service for large appliances, carried out by authorised personnel. To assert claims under a manufacturer’s guarantee or statutory warranty, the customer was instructed to contact the manufacturer directly. It was also pointed out that the manufacturer’s contact details could be found in the appliance manual.
On 8 July 2025, the buyer received a further email containing similar information. In it, the defendant stated that the manufacturer’s guarantee for the appliance had already expired. The customer was instructed to contact the manufacturer to arrange a repair at the customer’s expense.
Action Brought by Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband
Seller Liable for Statutory Warranty Claims
vzbv challenged the communications as a breach of competition law. In its view, the emails gave customers the incorrect impression that the seller was not responsible for statutory warranty claims.
However, the defendant, as the seller, was the customer’s contractual point of contact for statutory warranty rights. The applicable statutory warranty period was 24 months. In its own frequently asked questions on its website, the defendant had also acknowledged its responsibility for such claims.
On 15 July 2025, vzbv issued the operator of the online shop with a formal cease-and-desist notice. As the notice did not produce the requested outcome, the claim for injunctive relief was pursued in court.
Defendant’s Objections
The defendant argued, among other things, that the matter involved individual communications with a customer. The second email had been sent as a result of an employee’s error.
Landgericht Ingolstadt rejected these objections. In the chamber’s view, the submissions were insufficient to establish that the employee concerned was entitled to assume that consumers would interpret the statements differently.
Misleading Information About Statutory Warranty Rights
Understanding of the Average, Reasonably Well-Informed Consumer
Landgericht Ingolstadt held that the contested statements were misleading within the meaning of the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (German Act Against Unfair Competition). An average, reasonably well-informed consumer could understand the messages to mean that the defendant was not liable under the statutory warranty and that the manufacturer alone was responsible.
In fact, during the applicable period, the seller is liable for defects that were already present at the time of sale. According to the facts underlying the decision, the fact that the manufacturer’s guarantee may have expired did not affect the seller’s responsibility for statutory warranty claims.
In the chamber’s view, the statements in the emails were not merely expressions of opinion. Rather, they conveyed to the recipient a statement regarding the applicable legal position.
A Single Incident Was Sufficient to Support the Claim for Injunctive Relief
In the court’s view, no systematic practice was required for the purposes of the competition law assessment. For reasons of consumer protection, a single incident could be sufficient.
Nor was it relevant that the specific recipient was employed by the claimant association and may have had particular prior knowledge. The relevant standard was the understanding of an average, reasonably well-informed consumer.
The fact that the buyer was not deterred by the information from continuing to assert his claims against the seller also did not alter the assessment. The chamber inferred a risk of recurrence from the infringement that had already occurred.
Injunction, Enforcement Measures and Reimbursement of Costs
Claimant Successful in Its Application for Injunctive Relief
vzbv succeeded in full with its application for injunctive relief relating to the specific form of infringement. According to the grounds for the decision, the chamber’s rewording of the application did not constitute partial defeat on the part of the claimant.
For each breach of the court’s injunction, the following enforcement measures may be imposed:
-
An administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000 may be imposed.
-
Alternatively, administrative detention of up to six months may be ordered.
-
Administrative detention is to be enforced against the defendant’s managing directors.
In addition, the defendant must pay the claimant a fixed amount of EUR 350 to cover the costs of the cease-and-desist notice. Interest at five percentage points above the base interest rate is also payable from the date on which the action became pending. The defendant must furthermore bear the costs of the proceedings.
Amount in Dispute and Provisional Enforceability
Landgericht Ingolstadt set the amount in dispute at EUR 15,000. As regards the injunction, the judgment is provisionally enforceable only upon the provision of security in the amount of EUR 15,000. In all other respects, provisional enforcement requires security amounting to 110 per cent of the sum to be enforced in each case.
Significance for Customer Communications in Statutory Warranty Cases
The decision highlights the importance under competition law of providing accurate information about responsibility for defects in goods. If a customer who reports a defect within the statutory warranty period is referred directly to the manufacturer, this may create the misleading impression that the seller is not liable for statutory warranty claims. Companies and affected parties seeking legal advice on comparable statements or other competition law matters can obtain appropriate competition law advice from MTR Legal.
