Update: Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of July 30, 2026 (Case No. I ZR 130/25)
On July 30, 2026, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the provision of health-related test seals for a fee is subject to strict requirements regarding accuracy, unambiguity, and clarity—both with regard to the underlying testing procedure and the design of the seals. The Senate overturned the Munich Higher Regional Court’s appellate ruling and remanded the case for a new hearing.
The case concerned the “FOCUS Top Doctors” and “FOCUS Recommendation” seals, which listed doctors can use for advertising purposes in exchange for an annual license fee. The Competition Center had challenged the practice of granting these seals for a fee as misleading under Section 5(1) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
- The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) classifies the seals as health-related test logos. As a result, the particularly strict standards for health-related advertising apply.
- If the testing procedure results in limitations on the validity of the findings, the seal must make these limitations clear. A generalized quality label that does not disclose the criteria on which it is based or whose subjective assessment it reflects may give the false impression of professional authority that is not justified.
- Providing the seals for a fee constitutes a commercial activity. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression do not preclude this, because the primary focus is on the marketing of a standalone advertising product.
The case has not yet been finally decided: The Munich Higher Regional Court must now determine whether the specific testing procedure meets these requirements.
Practical advice: Anyone who uses seals, rankings, or lists of the best providers in the healthcare market to advertise should clearly state the evaluation criteria and their limitations in a way that is transparent and clearly visible on the seal itself. For the doctors being promoted, the use of a non-transparent seal can also pose a risk under competition law.
The Federal Court of Justice (Ref. I ZR 130/25 ) heard a case on May 7, 2026, concerning an issue of significant practical relevance to the healthcare market. The focus is on medical certifications such as “TOP-Mediziner” and “FOCUS RECOMMENDATION”, i.e. awards that attract attention, promote trust and play a not insignificant role in the public image of doctors and healthcare providers. Precisely because such seals have a strong advertising impact on the market, legal questions arise regarding transparency, validity and admissibility in competition.
Why are doctor’s seals so legally relevant?
Medical seals play a significant role in the external image of practices, portals and healthcare providers. They create trust, attract attention and can convey a special position in competition. However, this is precisely where the potential for conflict lies: as soon as awards, rankings or quality seals are used in business dealings, questions regularly arise regarding transparency, objectivity, the risk of misleading information and fair competitive conditions. The decisive factor is then not only how a provider understands its own seal, but above all, what message the target public actually attaches to the seal.
The proceedings concern awards as “TOP-Mediziner” and “FOCUS EMPFEHLUNG”. The main issue in dispute is whether and to what extent such seals are comparable to traditional test or quality seals. The Munich Higher Regional Court, as the lower court, dismissed the action and stated that the public knew from the prominent use of the FOCUS logothat it was not the mark of a neutral testing institute, but the rating of a media company. Furthermore, according to the court, the public does not expect fully objectifiable standards for the evaluation of freelance services, as is the case with technical product tests.
It is noteworthy that the OLG did not regard the seals as mere advertising self-promotion, but as the result of an editorial research and selection process. According to the findings of the lower court, the creation of the lists was based, among other things, on the formation of a research pool, the evaluation of public data sources, questionnaires, recommendations from colleagues, a scoring system and a final plausibility check. It is precisely this mixture of objective and evaluative elements that makes the case particularly interesting from a legal perspective.
Why is competition law relevant here?
Fairness law is central here because the contested seals are used in the course of trade for advertising purposes. It is therefore not a matter of a purely internal or editorial assessment, but of market-related statements with which doctors and other parties can advertise. The legally decisive factor is what the public associates with such a seal: If the impression of a particularly resilient, neutral and comprehensible quality statement is created, although the basis for this is not sufficiently transparent, misleading may be considered. This is precisely why the focus is on the competition law standards for misleading statements, statement content and essential information.
The Munich Higher Regional Court (judgment of May 22, 2025, Ref.: 29 U 867/23 e) expressly examined the case from the perspective of Sections 3, 5 and 5a UWG and denied a claim for injunctive relief. In its opinion, there was no unfair misrepresentation in particular because the awards had been awarded in a serious procedure, the public understood them as a recommendation from a media company and their significance was not devalued by a complete lack of objective criteria. At the same time, however, the decision also shows that the competition law assessment of seals always depends heavily on the design, context and public understanding.
Practical significance for companies and providers
The proceedings are likely to be relevant for all parties involved who advertise with doctors’ seals, award such seals or wish to have their use legally reviewed. Regardless of the subsequent outcome, the case already shows that medical seals are not just a marketing detail. Anyone working with awards should check in particular whether the criteria are disclosed in a comprehensible manner, whether the significance of the seal is presented accurately and whether users, patients or other market participants can recognize the basis on which the assessment or award is made. On the related topic of fixed prices for medicinal products, please also read our article: Are vouchers for prescription-only medicinal products permissible?
Particularly in the digital environment, doctors’ seals can have a significant impact on the perception of quality, trust and reputation. The risk of unclear or misleading representations being legally challenged is correspondingly high – whether under competition law aspects or in the wider context of reputation and communication issues. This means in particular for providers of seal models: The methodology should be reliably documented, the awarding practice consistent and the advertising use legally clean.
Our classification
The case shows that the awarding of doctors’ seals of approval has become legally relevant. For providers of rankings, platforms, media companies, agencies and advertised service providers, this is a clear signal: trust advertising in the healthcare market requires legal diligence.
As soon as a decision is available, it will be easier to assess which requirements the BGH places on medical seals in detail. However, the following already applies: anyone developing, marketing or using seal models should check their legal viability at an early stage.
Are doctors’ seals generally permissible under competition law?
Yes, doctor’s seals are not illegal per se. The decisive factor is whether the award criteria are disclosed transparently, whether the public recognizes the character as a recommendation of a media company and whether no misleading information is provided about the validity or procedure (Sections 3, 5, 5a UWG).
What did the OLG Munich decide?
The Higher Regional Court of Munich (judgment of May 22, 2025, case no.: 29 U 867/23 e) denied a claim for injunctive relief: The seals were awarded in a reputable procedure, the public understood them as a recommendation from a media company and unfair misrepresentation within the meaning of Sections 3, 5, 5a UWG could not be established. Note: The first judgment of Munich Regional Court I (action upheld, February 13, 2023) is still missing from the article – please add it.
What are the practical implications of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decision of July 30, 2026?
On July 30, 2026, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled (Case No. I ZR 130/25) that health-related certification seals offered for a fee are subject to strict requirements regarding accuracy, unambiguity, and clarity. If the testing procedure results in limitations on the label’s informative value, the label must make these limitations apparent. The Senate overturned the ruling of the Munich Higher Regional Court (OLG) and remanded the case; the OLG must now reexamine whether the labels are misleading within the meaning of Section 5 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
Seals, awards, and advertising that emphasizes quality: Competition law often determines in detail what is permissible. We provide you with legally sound advice—learn more about competition law.
