Company
are liable for
Customer Reviews.
Company
are liable for
Customer Reviews.
of
A manufacturer allowed satisfied veterinarians to speak for themselves in its advertising without comment. The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg deemed this to be misleading and banned the advertisement in summary proceedings. With regard to the manufacturer’s liability, it was irrelevant whether the manufacturer had endorsed the content of the third-party statements.
A veterinary drug and eleven real-world examples
A company promoted its prescription veterinary drug to veterinarians using claims that it attributed to the day-to-day practice of individual veterinarians. Among other things, the advertisement claimed that the product worked better “in my practice” than other products, led to the disappearance of hair loss within one to three days, or ensured “perfect control of itching.” A total of eleven such claims were at issue.
A competitor considered these statements to be misleading and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the Hamburg Regional Court. The Regional Court granted the motion only in part (Order dated June 8, 2026 – Case No. 416 HKO 71/26). The competitor filed an immediate appeal with the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg against the rejection of the remaining motions.
The drug manufacturer defended itself by stating that the statements came from the veterinarians quoted themselves and not from the company. It also argued that certain phrases were clearly promotional exaggerations that no one took seriously. Regarding the alleged superiority over competing products, it cited its own studies.
The Higher Regional Court largely grants the appeal
The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (3rd Civil Division) amended the Regional Court’s ruling by Decision of July 15, 2026 – Case No. 3 W 33/26 in part, and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the respondent from making all eleven of the contested statements.
Why is the manufacturer liable, even though the veterinarians speak for themselves?
The court clarifies that the pharmaceutical company is directly liable for all of the disputed statements because it advertised them itself. It is therefore irrelevant whether the company endorsed the content of the third-party quotes.
The defendant is liable for all of the statements because she used them in her own advertising […]. She is therefore the perpetrator in this regard.
Why does a single testimonial come across as a general promise?
In the court’s view, even knowledgeable readers do not interpret uncommented testimonials as mere individual opinions, but rather as statements that can be generalized. Even experts are not immune to interpreting an uncommented individual account in such a way that they assume the success described can be applied to their own practice.
For companies that use customer testimonials in their advertising—regardless of their industry—this means in practice: Anyone who incorporates a statement into their own advertising without comment must assume that the target audience will view it as a general characteristic of the product—even if it is clear that the statement comes from a third party, and even if that target audience consists of experts.
Conclusion
A new and practically significant clarification is that the advertiser’s liability does not depend on the category of endorsement. As soon as the advertiser incorporates the statements into their own advertising, they are liable for their content. This simplifies the legal assessment for competitors and courts, as it eliminates the need for a time-consuming examination of the attribution of third-party conduct.
The decision is particularly unfavorable for companies that have, until now, included customer testimonials in their advertising without careful consideration or legal review—regardless of whether the products in question are veterinary drugs, dietary supplements, or ordinary consumer goods. Anyone who cites testimonials should, going forward, critically evaluate their validity and clearly contextualize them.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
