BGH Decides on Deceptive Price Advertising: A Closer Look at Netto's Case
Court Hearing on Price Discount Advertisements (at BGH) - Advertising negotiations undertaken at a decreased cost by BGH
Here's the lowdown on the recent kerfuffle surrounding Netto's advertising tactics. The Central Office for Fair Competition levied allegations of misleading advertising against the company and filed a lawsuit for an injunction hearing. Back in 2024, a regional court in Nuremberg largely supported the claims, ruling that consumers were tricked by the lack of information about the scope of the price reduction and that the advertising practice was indeed misleading.
Netto, not one to back down easily, appealed the decision to the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH). Coincidentally, around the same time, the European Court of Justice weighed in, establishing that any advertised price reduction should be calculated based on the lowest price of the past 30 days.
Now, let's dig a bit deeper into the BGH's ruling on March 27, 2025 (case I ZR 222/19). The court confirmed that advertising reduced prices must adhere to principles established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), i.e., ensuring that price reductions are genuine and not deceptive to consumers. This means that the advertised "reduced price" should reflect a real, previously offered price for a substantial period. This ruling is in sync with the ECJ's stance on curbing unfair commercial practices.
In essence, the BGH ruling underscores the ECJ's position that price reduction advertising must be truthful and verifiable. The court's decision aims to prevent misleading promotions that might potentially skew consumer purchasing choices and protect consumers from underhanded retail tactics such as those employed by Netto. Hear, hear!
Netto's appeal to the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) resulted in a ruling that aligned with the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) stance on fair advertising. In the case I ZR 222/19, the BGH stated that any reductions in prices must be genuine and truthful, and should reflect a previously offered price for a significant period, as established by the ECJ. This ruling aims to protect consumers from misleading price reduction promotions, as part of the ECJ's efforts to curb unfair commercial practices in business and finance.
