Based on anonymous user data, Google’s waiting time display provides information on how long a customer has to wait on average for an available table. However, the fact that this display does not always reflect the actual waiting time is shown by the case of a brewery in Tegernsee, whose landlord filed a complaint against the display.
Google took the waiting time display for Tegernseer Bräustüble offline in July 2019
The landlord had been trying to get Google to take the waiting time display offline since 2017, which Google finally did in July 2019.
However, the landlord lacked certainty that the function would continue to be blocked for the Tegernseer Bräustüble, but Google did not accept service of process on its German subsidiary in Hamburg and referred to its headquarters in the USA.
Date at Munich Regional Court I canceled
The Regional Court of Munich I had scheduled a hearing for 28.8.2019, which has now been canceled at short notice. The reason for this was the submission of a declaration of discontinuance and undertaking regarding the waiting time display by Google.
A success for Tegernseer Bräustüble, but this case also shows how difficult it can be for small and medium-sized companies to defend themselves legally against Google and the like.
Misleading waiting time displays not an isolated case
This is also not an isolated case. According to the Bavarian Hotel and Restaurant Association, there are around 20-30 other cross-industry cases complaining about Google’s misleading waiting time display.
Proper service of process remains open
The Munich I Regional Court will no longer have to answer the question of proper service of process.
However, the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center had already filed a lawsuit against Microsoft at the Munich Regional Court in 2017. There, too, Microsoft had deemed the service of process on its German subsidiary to be inadmissible. After the Regional Court of Munich I initially ruled in favor of Microsoft, the service of process was deemed admissible by the Higher Regional Court of Munich in the second instance (OLG Munich, judgment of 2 March 2017, Ref.: 6 U 2940/16).
Further legal and economic implications for companies
This case is a good example of the challenges companies face when defending their interests against large tech corporations. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular often do not have the necessary resources to prevail in a long legal battle against global companies such as Google. In cases like that of Tegernseer Bräustüble, this means not only a potentially high financial burden, but also a significant investment of time and legal capacity that SMEs often simply do not have. They are therefore reliant on specialist lawyers to enforce their claims. Legal uncertainties, such as in the case of service of process, also make access to fast and efficient legal action more difficult.
Limits of law enforcement against international tech giants
The problem of service in this case underlines the difficulties that arise when national companies attempt to take action against international groups based abroad. Even if a German subsidiary exists, it is often a considerable effort for many SMEs to obtain service at the international headquarters. The refusal of large corporations to accept legal action in Germany has far-reaching consequences for the enforceability of legal claims. In practice, this leads to an imbalance of power that gives corporations an advantage and puts obstacles in the way of national companies.
Outlook: New legal regulations to combat market abuse
The EU has long been discussing a legal framework to strengthen the position of SMEs compared to large digital companies. As part of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, new regulations are to be introduced which, among other things, are intended to improve the enforcement of rights for smaller companies and prevent the abuse of market power. The example of the waiting time display shows how necessary such legal adjustments are in order to ensure fair competition in the digital economy. If large companies are forced to ensure transparency and a truthful presentation of their services, not only SMEs but also consumers will benefit.
Conclusion: A precedent for the future
The Tegernsee Bräustüble case could set a precedent for other small and medium-sized companies that want to defend themselves against the often non-transparent information policy of tech giants. The legal dispute shows that companies can certainly defend themselves against unfair practices, even if this is often a long and cost-intensive process. Nevertheless, the tenacity of the host and the outcome of this case could encourage other SMEs to actively defend their own rights and take legal action if necessary.
