Misleading advertising reg. the reporting requirement for online precious metal purchases

Advertising by a coin dealer stating that “Orders over € 2,000 are not subject to reporting requirements with us!” is a misleading commercial practice under Section 5 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG). In future, advertising companies will not be able to rely on the blanket assumption that expressed legal opinions are always excluded from misleading advertising tests as expressions of opinion.

In his article „Irreführende Werbung zur Meldepflicht bei Online-Edelmetallkäufen“ (Misleading advertising regarding the reporting requirement for online precious metal purchases) in GRUR Prax 22/2025, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Eckhard Ratjen explains the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe of September 19, 2025 (14 U 72/25) against an online coin dealer whose advertising with the statement “Orders over €2,000 are not subject to reporting requirements with us!” constituted a misleading commercial practice under Section 5 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

According to the court, the online coin dealer’s statement gave the impression that there was a legal reporting obligation in the stationary precious metals trade that did not apply to online trading. In fact, the Money Laundering Act (Section 4 V No. 1 lit. b GwG) only provides for identification and risk management obligations; there is no general reporting obligation. The reporting obligation under Section 43 I GwG only applies in cases of concrete suspicion. The court clarified that advertising statements on the legal situation could be classified as factual claims if they suggested a binding regulation.

In his article, Dr. Ratjen evaluates the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe and recommends in practice that advertising statements on legal issues must be complete and accurate in terms of content, as simplistic or selective representations can quickly be considered misleading or sensationalist and thus, under certain circumstances, classified as factual claims. In future, advertising companies should no longer rely on the fact that legal opinions expressed are always excluded from misleading advertising tests as expressions of opinion.

The full article in German by Dr. Eckhard Ratjen is available for download to registered users of GRUR-Prax here.