Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA OLGNrnberg12 January 2022Germany
final
ePrivacy
Court Ruling

A court ruled that inbox advertisements require user consent, which affects how companies can market to consumers. This decision came after a competitor challenged a company's advertising method that lacked prior consent. It sets a clear standard for advertising practices online.

What happened

The court decided that eprimo's inbox advertising was unlawful because it did not obtain prior consent from users.

Who was affected

Users of the T-Online email service who received unsolicited advertisements in their inbox.

What the authority found

The court held that inbox advertisements must have prior consent from users, aligning with ePrivacy regulations.

Why this matters

This ruling establishes that companies must obtain consent before sending advertisements via email. It highlights the ongoing importance of user consent in digital marketing strategies.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

S7 UWG
Decision AuthorityBGH
Reviewed AuthorityOLG Nuremberg
Source verified 10 April 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

eprimo, a German electricity supplier, distributed advertisements consisting of displaying banners in the email inboxes of the T-Online free email service. When users opened their inbox, those advertisements were shown to them at random, indistinguishable from the list of emails in the users' inbox except for the fact that the date was replaced by the word ‘Anzeige’ (advertisement), no sender was mentioned and the text appeared against a grey background. When clicking on what looked like an email at first glance, the users were shown that advertisement. This procedure is known as inbox advertising. Städtische Werke Lauf a.d Pegnitz GmbH (‘StWL’) is a competitor of eprimo and considered eprimo's inbox advertising unlawful under the rules of unfair competition because there was no prior consent by the users. StWL, after at first succeeding with an action before the Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth, lost the case in the second instance before the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg. When it appealed at the BGH, it referred the subject to the CJEU. In particular, it asked whether inbox advertising was compatible with the ePrivacy Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive which require consent for electronic mail that is sent to users for the purposes of direct marketing, prohibiting unsolicited communications. The CJEU decided that inbox advertisements require prior consent. The BGH agreed with the StWL and overturned the Regional Court's decision, taking into consideration the CJEU's ruling. It held that eprimo had violated competition law and had to compensate StWL. According to the court, pursuant to § 7(2)(3) Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb - UWG), any direct marketing using the email inbox of the user requires prior consent. Such consent had not been obtained by eprimo. It assumed that it is irrelevant whether potential users of the free email service had been made aware of the use of parts of the internet pa

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Violations (2)

Cookies Placed Before Consent
critical

Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.

Art. 6(1) GDPR

Third-Party Cookies Without Consent
critical

Third-party tracking cookies or scripts are loaded without obtaining prior user consent.

Art. 13, 14 GDPR

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH in DE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

12 January 2022

Authority

DPA OLGNrnberg

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified
Cookie relevance: 80%

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Städtische Werke Lauf a.d. Pegnitz GmbH - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: