A motor vehicle dealer may not advertise a car with a price that is conditional on the buyer trading in his old vehicle if this is not apparent to the consumer at first glance. This was decided by the 6th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne in its ruling of 5 April 2019 and, in contrast to the Regional Court, upheld the action brought by a Wettbewerbszentrale against the car dealer.
The facts
The defendant car dealer offered a car on an online platform as a "limousine, new vehicle" at a price of 12,490 euros. The advertisement for the offered vehicle extended over several screen pages that could be reached by scrolling down. Only under the item "Further information" at the end of the advertisement was it stated that the price would only apply if the customer traded in a registered used vehicle. Furthermore, it was noted there that the price was subject to the condition of a one-day registration in the following month.
The decision
The 6th Civil Senate ruled that the price indication was misleading and therefore inadmissible. The advertisement gave the impression that the vehicle could be bought by anyone at a price of 12,490 euros. In fact, however, the price was only valid for buyers who could and wanted to trade in a registered vehicle. This was a so-called "bold-faced lie" which could not be rectified even by an explanatory addendum. Price indications should ensure clarity about prices and prevent consumers from having to form their price ideas on the basis of non-comparable prices. In the case of the advertisement, the value of a vehicle to be traded in later by the buyer was, by its very nature, still completely unclear. For the consumer, the price indication was ultimately worthless. He could not meaningfully compare the offer with the offers of other dealers.
In the opinion of the Senate, the information under the heading "Further the Senate does not change the deception of the consumer. The eye-catcher of the advertisement is the illustration of the vehicle with its name and the and the price. Between this information and the explanation under the point "Further information" were several pages of extensive text. It was to be consumer looking for a new vehicle would already be familiar with the new vehicle would have already looked into the type of car and its technical details. and its technical details. In order to evaluate an offer, he would therefore only the purchase price and little further information. A not inconsiderable number of consumers would decide in favour of or against a closer look at the offer and, if necessary, contact the trader without contact the trader without having read the advertisement in its entirety.
Furthermore, the Senate also considered the advertising to be misleading because the misleading because the vehicle was described in the eye-catcher as a "new vehicle". and only under the heading "Further" was the condition of a one-day was included. The consumer expects a vehicle without a one-day registration when he vehicle without a one-day registration, especially as the search function of the platform distinguishes between between "new vehicle" and "one-day registration".
The Senate did not allow the appeal. The anonymised full text of the judgement is available at www.nrwe.de.
Source: Press release of the Cologne Higher Regional Court of 24 May 2019
