The AG Düsseldorf (judgment of November 20, 2025, Ref. 23 C 120/25) confirms: Unauthorized email advertising can trigger a claim for injunctive relief and warning costs. Email marketing therefore remains legally risky. This is particularly true in the B2B sector, where it is often assumed that business contacts, public email addresses or social media connections are sufficient as a basis for advertising emails.
The Düsseldorf Local Court has ruled that indirect networking via LinkedIn does not constitute express consent to email advertising. A mere unsubscribe option in the newsletter is also not sufficient. Anyone who sends advertising emails without prior consent risks claims for injunctive relief and the reimbursement of legal warning costs.
What was it about?
The plaintiff operates nationwide in the advertising media sector. The defendant offers IT services and IT security services, among other things.
The defendant sent two advertising emails to an email address used by the plaintiff for business purposes. The subject lines read, among other things, “SECURITY YOU CAN SEE” and “Cost savings and cyber security? Both are possible with SourceWeb.” However, the plaintiff did not give her express consent.
The defendant argued that the managing director of the plaintiff and he were at least indirectly networked on LinkedIn. Therefore, he was entitled to assume that there was consent to the newsletter being sent. There was also an unsubscribe option; the involvement of a lawyer was therefore not necessary. The court took a different view.
Advertising emails interfere with commercial operations
The AG Düsseldorf affirmed a claim for injunctive relief under §§ 1004 para. 1 sentence 2, 823 para. 1 BGB due to an unlawful interference with the established and exercised commercial operation.
In the opinion of the court, unsolicited advertising emails disrupt business operations. The recipient must sift through the messages, classify them and, if necessary, take measures to prevent further mailings. It is precisely this tying up of resources that the law is intended to prevent.
The court clarified that the emails in dispute were advertising. The decisive factor is whether the message serves to promote sales. In the case of emails offering IT and security services, this is obvious.
LinkedIn is not consent
The most important point of the decision concerns consent. Section 7 (2) no. 2 UWG generally requires prior express consent for advertising by electronic mail. The court based its decision on the requirements of EU law and the GDPR definition of consent: voluntary, for the specific case, informed and unambiguous.
Consent was therefore not given. The court’s statement on LinkedIn networking is particularly clear: even if there is contact via a professional network, this does not replace express consent to email advertising. This applies all the more if the advertising is not carried out via LinkedIn itself, but via another communication channel – in this case by email.
In other words: Anyone who is visible on LinkedIn or maintains contacts does not automatically open their e-mail inbox for advertising messages.
Section 7 (3) UWG did not help either
The defendant could also not invoke the exception provision of Section 7 (3) UWG.
This provision allows email advertising under strict conditions, even without express consent. One of the requirements is that the entrepreneur has received the email address in connection with the sale of goods or services and is advertising their own similar goods or services.
This was not the case here. The defendant had not received the email address in connection with a sale to the plaintiff. The exception therefore already failed on the first condition.
Unsubscribing from the newsletter is not enough
The objection that the plaintiff could have simply unsubscribed from the newsletter was also unsuccessful.
The court clarified that the mere possibility of unsubscribing does not replace the right to injunctive relief. Nor was the plaintiff obliged to refer the matter to the Federal Network Agency. The decisive factor was that the plaintiff was allowed to take legal action against the unlawful advertising and demand a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause.
This is an important point for companies. An “unsubscribe” link does not make an unlawful advertising email lawful. It also does not automatically eliminate the risk of repetition caused by the infringement.
Risk of repetition only eliminated by a cease-and-desist declaration with penalty clause
According to established case law, the risk of repetition is presumed by the infringement. The AG Düsseldorf also confirmed this here: Anyone who sends unauthorized advertising e-mails must generally expect a claim for injunctive relief.
The mere assertion that the address has been removed from the mailing list is not sufficient. Even a simple declaration to cease and desist without a contractual penalty is not sufficient. As a rule, the risk of repetition is only eliminated by a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause.
This is particularly relevant for senders of advertising emails: Anyone who simply replies “we will delete you from our mailing list” after receiving a warning usually has not legally resolved the conflict.
What does this mean in practice?
The decision is a further clear indication that B2B email marketing should not be treated “loosely”. Particularly in the business environment, it is often assumed that advertising is permissible if there is a factual connection to the company. This is dangerous.
The decisive factor is not whether the advertised service could be of interest to the recipient. The decisive factor is whether there is a legal basis for the specific advertising email.
Companies should therefore pay particular attention:
LinkedIn contacts are not newsletter consents. Networking in social networks does not automatically allow advertising by e-mail.
Publicly discoverable e-mail addresses are not a license. Even addresses published for business purposes may not be used for advertising mailings without further ado.
An unsubscribe link does not remedy a lack of consent. In principle, opt-out does not replace a required opt-in.
§ Section 7 (3) UWG is narrow. The exception only applies if all requirements are met – in particular, the address must have been obtained in connection with a sale.
After a warning, deletion alone is not enough. To eliminate the risk of repetition, a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause is regularly required.
Practical tip for companies
Anyone who engages in email marketing should document their mailing lists properly. For each address, it should be possible to trace when, how and for what purpose consent was given. In the case of advertising to existing customers in accordance with Section 7 (3) UWG, it should also be documented from which sales contact the address originates and whether the option to object was properly pointed out at the time of collection and for each use.
Particular care should be taken with contacts from LinkedIn, Xing, trade fair directories, imprints or public company websites. Although such sources can open up business contact opportunities, they do not replace express consent to direct advertising by email.
What does the decision mean for the future?
Düsseldorf District Court makes it clear that a strict standard also applies to email advertising in the B2B sector. Professional networking via LinkedIn, a factual reference to the advertising or a later unsubscribe option are not sufficient.
Anyone who sends advertising emails without consent risks injunctive relief, fines and warning costs. For recipients of unauthorized advertising, however, the decision confirms that they do not have to be satisfied with simply unsubscribing, but can take legal action against the mailing.
