Advertisement

with “free”

misleading?

17. September 2026

of

Clemens Pfitzer

A ferry company is advertising a free shuttle service between three docking points on the Rhine. However, passengers who continue their journey pay the full fare starting from their actual boarding point, not just for the remaining portion of the trip. Does this advertisement, by using the term “free,” mislead customers about the true scope of the service?

A shuttle service as a response to the closed North Bridge

Two companies operate commercial passenger ferry services on the Rhine in the Bonn area. Both companies are in direct competition with each other there and are competitors under competition law. The legal dispute arose from the last-minute complete closure of the Bonn North Bridge, which significantly disrupted road traffic in the Bonn area.

One company responded by advertising a “free boat shuttle between Bonn, Bonner Bogen, and Bad Godesberg.” For this service, the company utilized its three regular-service boats, which were already in operation. These boats called at the three stations mentioned. They then continued upstream on the Rhine to Königswinter or Linz, respectively, without passengers having to change boats.

The allegation: undisclosed additional costs

The competitor sent a cease and desist letter to the company running the ad. She viewed the advertisement as unfairly misleading. The advertisement gave the impression that the advertised section of the route would remain free of charge even if it were part of a continuous trip. It appeared that a passenger would then only have to pay for the remaining portion of the trip from Bad Godesberg.

It was undisputed that a passenger traveling beyond Bad Godesberg must pay the full fare from the actual boarding location. The fare from Bad Godesberg alone is not sufficient. In the competitor’s view, the advertisement did not communicate this restriction clearly enough. It therefore filed a motion with the Cologne Regional Court for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the advertisement.

The Regional Court and Higher Regional Court of Cologne rule that there was no misleading conduct

The Cologne Regional Court dismissed the motion. The competitor filed an immediate appeal against this ruling. In a ruling dated July 27, 2026—Case No. 6 W 57/26— the Cologne Higher Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Does the overall impression of the ad matter?

In the court’s view, the overall appearance of the advertisement is what matters for the understanding of the relevant public. A single sentence considered in isolation is not sufficient for this purpose. The wording “Free boat shuttle between Bonn, Bonner Bogen, and Bad Godesberg” alone makes it clear: The free offer applies solely to this specific section of the route. The graphic illustration under the heading “How it works” also reinforces this understanding. The same applies to the statement indicating that passengers are transported “free of charge on the short Rhine route.”

Is the lack of oversight sufficient to constitute deception?

The competitor had further argued that the advertising company had no control over who took advantage of the free offer. According to this argument, even passengers who were not affected by the bridge closure could take advantage of it. The judges of the Cologne Higher Regional Court did not find this argument sufficient. A reasonable and reasonably attentive average consumer—that is, an average, well-informed, and attentive customer—would recognize the context of the advertisement. The offer clearly referred to the acute traffic situation resulting from the bridge closure.

He would therefore not assume that he could save part of the costs even on a trip undertaken for other purposes. While the lack of verifiability does make the offer susceptible to unauthorized use, it does not give rise to any relevant misconception regarding the scope of the advertised service.

The court also took into account the so-called “lure effect”—that is, the particular promotional impact of free offers. Consequently, the advertising for such offers is generally subject to stricter requirements regarding the clarity and recognizability of the scope of services. In the present case, this did not lead to a different outcome. The conditions for claiming the offer were clearly outlined in the advertisement as a whole. Consequently, no relevant misunderstanding regarding the scope of the free offer could arise.

Conclusion

We’d be happy to

advise you on

Competition law!

Contact Form

Call now!