The most important court decisions for online retailers in 2025

As 2026 has begun, we’re taking a look back at the most important court rulings from 2025. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled how markdowns must be displayed, and two companies lost a lot of money due to missing cancellation policy information. In addition, the conditions for email advertising were eased, and the European Court of Justice is now set to rule on the case of the Google Fonts warning-letters.

1. The Issue with Markdowns

The Price Indication Regulation in 2022 was supposed to clearly regulate how markdowns may be advertised. Nevertheless, numerous cases ended up in court, so the European Court of Justice and later on the BGH had to officially rule on how markdowns may be advertised.

The Price Indication Regulation states that when a price reduction is advertised, the lowest product price of the last thirty days must be included. This is intended to prevent the price from being raised shortly beforehand in order to advertise an unusually high discount or for a price that was never actually charged to be indicated as the reference price.

Food discounters in particular tried to exploit this rule, but gradually suffered defeats in court. Last year, the Federal Court of Justice ruled against Netto. In a brochure, Netto had not indicated the lowest price of the last 30 days as a crossed-out reference price but had noted it in small print in a footnote. This practice violates the provisions of the Price Indication Regulation. The lowest price of the last 30 days must not be indicated in any random place but must be clearly recognisable and easy to read.

Retailers who advertise discounts should therefore ensure that the markdown price always truly represents the lowest price of the last 30 days.

2. Registered Mail Drop-off Is No Longer Sufficient Proof of Delivery

In July, the State Labour Court ruled that registered mail drop-off does not necessarily constitute reliable proof of delivery. Entrepreneurs often used this delivery method, especially for reminders, notices of termination, or other letters where compliance with a deadline is crucial.

Since the introduction of the digital variant of registered mail, the delivery person scans the shipment number and confirms delivery via a device, whereupon the system generates electronic proof of delivery. The court deemed this proof to be too imprecise, as it did not contain the exact address or time of delivery. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the letter was delivered to a mailbox or handed over to a person.

If you want to be on the safe side, you should therefore choose recorded delivery or have the letter delivered by courier. 

3. BGH: Retailers Can Defend Themselves Better Against the Ido Association

The Ido Association has not been allowed to issue warnings for some time now, as it is not on the list of qualified warning associations anymore. After a company had already been warned in 2020 for violating the Price Indication Regulation, Ido applied for an administrative fine against the company in 2024. However, the company filed an action to prevent enforcement on the grounds that the association was not included in the list of qualified trade associations and therefore had no legal standing or entitlement. 

The Federal Court of Justice agreed and found that there was no authority to enforce. Warning associations that are not included in the list of qualified trade associations are also not permitted to enforce administrative fines.

4. Customer Tricks With Withdrawal — Retailer Loses in Court

This case showed how important proper withdrawal information is: a tradesman ended up with no payment after trying to renovate a bathroom.

A customer contacted a craftsman’s business by phone to order a bathroom renovation. The details were then agreed upon by email, the bathroom was installed, and nothing was complained about at the acceptance. The company sent out the invoice, but it was never paid. Instead, the customer claimed to have withdrawn from the contract.

The problem was that the company had not informed the customer about the cancellation policy. The entrepreneur was of the opinion that this was not a remote sale. However, the court disagreed, as all contract communication had taken place via telephone and email. Even if bathroom installation is generally considered an individual service that is legally excluded from the right of withdrawal, this must be pointed out. If this information is not provided, the right of withdrawal applies here as well. 

5. €400,000 Lost After Withdrawal — “Your Loss” According to the BGH

A similar fate befell an entrepreneur who lost a total of €400,000. In this case, the customer was also not properly informed of his right of withdrawal. As this was a service contract concluded via distance selling, the entrepreneur should, however, have done so. Without a proper withdrawal instruction, the withdrawal period never began. This meant that even after the contract had been fulfilled in full, a valid withdrawal could still be declared. 

6. Marketing to Existing Customers Without Purchase?

While there was an increase in warnings issued for email advertising without consent, the European Court of Justice handed down a ruling that somewhat relaxed the requirements for advertising to existing customers. 

The rules for email marketing enable the sending of promotional emails without explicit consent if three conditions are met: the email address must have been collected in connection with a sale, the advertisement must be for similar products, and recipients must be able to object to the advertising at any time.

A media outlet from Romania sent advertising after customers had registered for free access and subsequently received advertisements. The free registration allowed access to some content. The advertising then pointed to further paid content. The ECJ regarded this approach as permissible marketing to existing customers. Whether this ruling will also influence the world of e-commerce remains to be seen.

7. How Email Addresses Must Appear in the Imprint

An incomplete imprint can quickly lead to a warning. The Frankfurt Regional Court has now decided how email addresses must be displayed.

The operator of an online shop did not write out the email address, but merely linked to it under the text “Write us an E-Mail.” The court found this insufficient. Under the Digital Services Act, the email address for electronic mail must be easily recognizable, directly accessible, and constantly available. A mere link does not meet these requirements.

8. Google-Fonts Warning-Letter Claimant Before the ECJ

A few years ago, there was a massive wave of warnings because of the use of Google Fonts. Relatively quickly, the question arose whether these warnings constituted abuse of the legal process, because the warning sender specifically searched for websites that used Google Fonts, visited them, and then issued a warning.

The question ultimately reached the BGH, which referred it to the ECJ. No final ruling has been made yet. The decision could have major implications for the warning industry and mass warning campaigns.

Author: Hanna Hillnhütter – Hanna keeps an eye on legal developments, focusing on warnings, competition law and current EU regulations.. Find more of her writing on https://www.onlinehaendler-news.de/ 

Article originally published in German on January 7, 2026

Subscribe to our newsletter for more exciting news