The Federal Court of Justice (Ref. I ZR 130/25 ) will hear a case on May 7, 2026, 10:00 a.m., that has considerable practical relevance for the healthcare market. The focus is on medical seals 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.