A car dealer may not advertise a car with a price that is contingent on the buyer trading in their old vehicle, if this is not immediately apparent to the consumer. This was decided by the 6th Civil Senate of the Cologne Higher Regional Court in a judgment dated April 5, 2019, which, unlike the Regional Court, upheld the claim of a competition protection agency against the car dealer.
The Facts of the Case
The defendant car dealer offered a passenger car as a “sedan, new vehicle” for 12,490 Euros on an online platform. The advertisement for the vehicle extended over several screen pages accessible by scrolling down. Only under the heading “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 a daily registration in the following month.
The Decision
The 6th Civil Senate ruled that the price indication was misleading and therefore inadmissible. The advertisement created the impression that the vehicle could be purchased by anyone for 12,490 Euros. In reality, however, the price only applied to buyers who could and would trade in a registered vehicle. This constituted a so-called “blatant lie” that could not be rectified even by an explanatory note. Price indications should ensure clarity regarding prices and prevent consumers from forming price expectations based on incomparable prices. In the advertisement, the value of a vehicle to be traded in by the buyer at a later date was naturally still completely unclear. For the consumer, the price indication was ultimately worthless. They could not reasonably compare the offer with those of other dealers.
According to the Senate, the information under the heading “Further Information” did not alter the deception of the consumer. The focal point of the advertisement was the image of the vehicle with its designation and price. Several pages of extensive text lay between this information and the explanation under “Further Information.” It must be assumed that a consumer searching for a new vehicle has already familiarized themselves with the vehicle type and its technical details. Therefore, to evaluate an offer, they typically only need the purchase price and a few other pieces of information. A significant number of consumers would decide for or against a closer examination of the offer and potentially contact the dealer without having read the entire advertisement.
Furthermore, the Senate also deemed the advertisement misleading because the vehicle was prominently described as a “new vehicle,” and only under “Further Information” was the condition of a daily registration mentioned. Consumers expect a vehicle without daily registration when “new vehicle” is stated, especially since the platform's search function differentiates between “new vehicle” and “daily registration.”
The Senate did not grant leave to appeal. The anonymized full text of the judgment is available at www.nrwe.de.
Source: Press release of the Cologne Higher Regional Court dated May 24, 2019
