It is not a good idea for service providers to install an automated response function for the email address you have given in your impression. The district court in Munich recently assessed that such an auto-reversion law is a violation of Article 5A of the law, which is an inappropriate competition (UWG).
Accordingly, people who mislead the consumer or other market participant by keeping the necessary information. Judges complete this fact by denying a personal email reaction.
The case goes back to a trial from the competitive center, which represents about 800 unions, industry chambers and about 1200 companies. The “Self-control Institute of the Economy” thus opposes the automated mail answers of a famous provider of online services for performance and cyber security.
Customers got automatic answer
In the impression of its website, it indicated a certain email address to contact us. However, customers only received an automatic response to letters with the indication that the inquiry would not be accepted through this address. Rather, alternative contact routes have to be used as a special form.
District court provided Competition Center With its decision of 25 February (AZ .: 33 o 3721/24), it is clear that an impression always requires a functioning email address. This para 5 is taken from the Digital Countrys Act (DDG).
According to this, the provider of business online services should be constantly available, among other things, “it enables quick electronic contact and direct communication with you, including the address for electronic mail”. According to judges, such a address should make it possible to contact the provider without restrictions or a predetermined categories. The reference to other communication channels is not sufficient.
Exercise fake only by email
If the inquiry for specified email address usually produces an automatic answer in terms of alternative contact options, then the lack of actual access through e-mail is still missing from the final decision. It violates quick electronic contact and legal requirements of direct communication.
Due to the complaint made, only clear access is fake, it continues, which is actually an additional obstacle to communication with the provider. Even potentially converted communication behavior cannot change e-mail obligation.
The competition center welcomes the decision, “Email is still fundamental in 2025 so that third party can quickly and easily draw attention to legal violations and problems.” “A complete impression with the work communication channels is important and remains accordingly.”
Already ten years ago, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that companies were not allowed to advertise with customers in automated email traffic. A policyholder had earlier complained that he received an advertisement for weather forecast through SMS and app after Auto-Riplai questioned customer service.
(Wpl)
