The Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court recently concluded proceedings against the operator of a German internet platform. The lawsuit was brought by an association whose tasks include the prosecution of competition law infringements. The association was of the opinion that the warranty conditions of the platform operator, which brings together commercial sellers and buyers of used electronic devices, were anti-competitive.
Advertising with a 36-month guarantee led to a warning
Specifically, the platform advertised a 36-month guarantee in connection with its product offers. In detail, however, the warranty conditions only contained a provision stating that a certain warranty was valid for 12 months after the expiry of the seller’s statutory warranty period of 24 months. The website also contained the statement that the customer would benefit from an additional 24-month warranty in addition to the statutory 12-month dealer warranty.
The association then issued an unsuccessful warning to the platform operator. The competent court initially granted the urgent application for a temporary injunction – however, it revoked the injunction following the defendant’s objection. The association then appealed to the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court. This court changed the decision of the lower court and confirmed the interim injunction in its ruling of November 11, 2021 (case no.: 6 U 121/21).
Indication of a 36-month warranty anti-competitive
In the court’s opinion, the information on the “36-month guarantee” is misleading and therefore anti-competitive. This is because the average consumer associates the statement with the fact that the platform grants an independent guarantee promise with a duration of 36 months on the purchased product. However, this is not true: in fact, according to the wording of its guarantee conditions, the platform merely grants a guarantee that is linked to the seller’s statutory warranty period.
In general, the advertising statement “36-month guarantee” was incorrect because the defendant was not the guarantor for the entire term, but rather the seller in the first instance, the court continued. In contrast, the blanket statement “36 months guarantee” gives the impression that there is only one guarantor. The misleading statement is also likely to influence consumers’ business decisions. On the one hand, it can be important for consumers whether only the statutory warranty rights or an independent warranty promise exists; on the other hand, it can also be important for the purchase decision whether the claiming of the warranty is uncomplicated and in any case it is clear who the guarantor is.