Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
I ZR 46/09 AI generated

Unsolicited telemarketing for third-party prize contests violates consumer call ban exception under § 7(2) No. 2 UWG

Case Number I ZR 46/09
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Court Costs Borne by appellant
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the defendant's motion for hearing, thereby upholding the appellate court's prior judgment against the defendant and leaving the lower court's decision in force. The dispute centered on whether the defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls regarding entry into third-party prize contests constituted an unfair competition violation under German law, with the defendant arguing that its specific activity in lottery brokering distinguished its calls from generic advertising. The court held that under Section 7(2) No. 2, Case 1 of the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), the decisive factor for the illegality of unsolicited consumer calls is the nature of the contact method, not the product advertised; therefore, because the defendant promoted contests it did not host, it acted as a service provider for foreign services rather than advertising its own goods, which meant the statutory exception for calls regarding the advertiser's own services did not apply.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 321a ZPO; Unsolicited telemarketing for third-party prize contests violates consumer call ban exception under § 7(2) No. 2 UWG: The dispute centered on whether the defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls regarding entry into third-party prize contests constituted an unfair competition violation under German law, with the defendant arguing that its specific activity in lottery brokering distinguished its calls from generic advertising. The court held that under Section 7(2) No. 2, Case 1 of the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), the decisive factor for the illegality of unsolicited consumer calls is the nature of the contact method, not the product advertised; therefore, because the defendant promoted contests it did not host, it acted as a service provider for foreign services rather than advertising its own goods, which meant the statutory exception for calls regarding the advertiser's own services did not apply.

Keywords

AI generated
unfair competition consumer law foreign law advertising services entry ban e-justice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 321a ZPO
Cited as the legal basis for the permissibility of the hearing objection (Anhörungsrüge) that the court found to be unmerited.
AI generated
I ZR 3/13
Unsolicited telephone marketing without prior consent: standing of competitors to enforce unfair competition prohibitions and proof of consent
I ZR 38/10
Telephone marketing consent: Separate "opt-in" requirement for commercial calls distinct from contest notifications under UWG § 7(2)(2)
I ZR 50/09
Unfair competition: Violation of the transparency requirement for prize competition conditions and invalid pre-formulated consent for commercial telemarketing
I ZR 276/14
Limits of damages recoverable under § 7 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 UWG for unlawful telephone advertising: exclusion of infringement of decision-making freedom from the protective scope of the norm

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 321a ZPO

Cited as the legal basis for the permissibility of the hearing objection (Anhörungsrüge) that the court found to be unmerited.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Wettbewerbsverstoß: Unverlangte Werbeanrufe gegenüber Verbrauchern

[TENOR]

Die Anhörungsrüge gegen das Senatsurteil vom 5. Oktober 2010 wird auf Kosten der Beklagten zurückgewiesen.

[GRUENDE]

Die gemäß § 321a ZPO statthafte und auch im Übrigen zulässige Gehörsrüge ist nicht begründet.

Ohne Erfolg macht die Beklagte geltend, der Senat habe nicht zur Kenntnis genommen, dass sich ihr Tätigkeitsfeld auf die Vermittlung von Gewinn- und Glücksspielen beschränke.

Der Senat hat das als übergangen gerügte Vorbringen der Beklagten zur Kenntnis genommen und in Erwägung gezogen. Er ist davon ausgegangen, dass im Fall des § 7 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 Fall 1 UWG das Charakteristische der Verletzungshandlung in unverlangten Werbeanrufen gegenüber Verbrauchern besteht und es deshalb grundsätzlich irrelevant ist, wofür geworben wird. Etwas anderes hat zu gelten, wenn ein Gewerbetreibender einen Werbeanruf für die Waren oder Dienstleistungen vornimmt, die Gegenstand seines Geschäftsbetriebs sind. Das Vorliegen dieses Ausnahmefalls hat der Senat verneint, weil die Beklagte für die Teilnahme an Gewinnspielen geworben hat. Gewinnspiele hat die Beklagte aber nicht selbst veranstaltet, so dass keine Werbeanrufe für eigene Dienstleistungen erfolgt waren, sondern die Tätigkeit der Beklagten derjenigen eines Callcenters oder sonstigen Dienstleistungserbringers vergleichbar war, der Werbeanrufe für fremde Dienstleistungen tätigte.

Bornkamm Pokrant Büscher

Kirchhoff Koch