Internet platforms may not advertise medical cannabis treatments in a way that specifically encourages consumers to demand prescription cannabis medications. Even without mentioning specific products or manufacturers, this may constitute a violation of the German Law on the Advertising of Medicines.

Medical cannabis has long been part of medical care, and more and more digital business models are emerging in areas such as appointment scheduling, telemedicine, mail-order pharmacies, and cannabis-related health services. This raises a key question for providers of such platforms: Where does permissible information end, and where does prohibited advertising begin?

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH, judgment of March 26, 2026, Case No.: I ZR 74/25) has issued an important ruling on this matter. According to the ruling, the operator of an online platform that facilitates medical treatments involving medical cannabis violates the ban on public advertising for prescription drugs if it enables treatment requests to be submitted to cooperating physicians by referring to conditions that can be treated with cannabis.

What was it about?

The defendant operated an internet portal through which interested parties could schedule appointments with private practitioners for medical cannabis treatments. It received compensation from the cooperating physicians for these referral services. The defendant’s corporate group also included companies involved in the trade of medical cannabis as well as a marketplace for mail-order pharmacies.

The Competition Authority deemed the website to be an unauthorized advertisement under pharmaceutical law.

Medical cannabis is available only by prescription

The basis for the decision is § 10(1) HWG . Accordingly, prescription drugs may only be advertised to certain professional groups that are authorized to trade in these drugs. Cannabis for medical purposes is subject to a prescription requirement under Section 3(1), first sentence, of the Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG). It is therefore generally subject to the ban on advertising to the general public under Section 10(1) of the Health Products Marketing Act (HWG).

The decisive factor, therefore, was not whether medical cannabis could be legally prescribed. Rather, the decisive factor was whether the specific online presentation to consumers should be considered advertising for a prescription drug.

No product mention required

The defendant had not mentioned any specific product names or manufacturers. That did not help her.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified that an advertisement for a drug is not limited to cases where a specific product is named. Even an advertisement that refers to an entire class of prescription drugs used to treat certain conditions may fall under Section 10(1) of the German Medicines Advertising Act (HWG).

In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the defendant had not limited itself to merely listing an active ingredient. It specifically named medical cannabis and further specified it by providing information on its areas of application. This made the reference to prescription drugs sufficiently specific.

A doctor’s decision does not exempt one from the advertising ban

One of the defendant’s arguments was that the decision to prescribe medical cannabis rests solely with the doctor. Consumers therefore cannot purchase medical cannabis on their own but must seek medical treatment.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) did not accept this argument either. The ban on public advertising is specifically intended to prevent consumers from being influenced by advertising and pressuring their doctors to prescribe a particular drug or group of drugs. The BGH saw precisely this risk in this case. The information regarding the potential uses of medical cannabis could prompt patients to specifically request cannabis treatment.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) thus confirms a strict standard: Even if the medical treatment decision remains formally independent, advertising on a consumer-oriented platform may be impermissible.

Information or advertising?

In practice, it is difficult to draw the line between permissible health information and prohibited advertising. The Federal Court of Justice makes it clear: what matters is the specific presentation.

Objective, balanced information about treatment options may be permissible. However, it becomes impermissible if the presentation is designed to promote the sale of prescription drugs. In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the websites in question went beyond providing appropriate and comprehensive information because they highlighted the benefits of cannabis treatment in isolation.

This is particularly relevant for platform models. Those who do more than just provide general information—but also directly offer treatment inquiries, appointment bookings, or other conversion elements—are moving closer to the realm of sales promotion.

Consequence under competition law: Injunction

A violation of Section 10(1) of the HWG is also relevant under competition law. Under Section 3a of the UWG, rules governing market conduct may be enforced by competitors or qualified associations.

The Competition Center was therefore able to seek an injunction. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) upheld the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main insofar as it had ordered the removal of the disputed websites.

For providers, this means that the Law on the Advertising of Medicines is not merely a regulatory requirement. Violations can immediately result in warning letters, preliminary injunctions, and injunctive relief.

What does this mean for platforms and telemedicine providers?

The decision does not apply only to cannabis platforms. It has broader implications for digital health services that combine prescription drugs, medical treatments, and commercial referral models.

Websites that

• highlight prescription drugs or groups of drugs,
• specify specific symptoms or indications,
• presenting the benefits of a particular form of therapy in a one-sided manner,
• enable users to book appointments or request treatment directly,
• and benefit economically from the brokerage or downstream supply.

The more these elements come together, the greater the risk that the content will be deemed impermissible advertising to the general public.

Practical Tip: Review Health Communications for Legal Compliance

Providers of digital health services should have their websites, landing pages, ads, social media campaigns, and search engine advertising carefully reviewed. This is especially true when it comes to prescription drugs.

Permissible information should be factual, balanced, and not worded in a way that promotes sales. Problematic are formulations that make a particular therapy appear particularly obvious, natural, beneficial, or straightforward, while at the same time paving the way for a prescription or treatment.

Corporate structures can also play a role. If a platform, pharmaceutical distributor, online pharmacy marketplace, or medical device distributor are economically linked, this can reinforce the promotional nature of the overall presentation.

We discuss the legal status of cannabis in retail in our podcast episode “Cannabis in (Online) Retail.”

Analysis: The Federal Court of Justice Strengthens Patient Protection

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarifies that the ban on advertising prescription drugs to the general public also applies to the digital health market. The ruling protects physicians’ treatment decisions from commercial pressure and prevents consumers from being steered toward certain groups of prescription drugs by one-sided online representations.

This sends a clear signal to the cannabis industry. Medical cannabis may be prescribed by a doctor. However, it may not be advertised to consumers in a way that effectively turns information into demand generation.