Driving School Ad
with a driver’s license
For REE.
Driving School Ad
with a driver’s license
For REE.
by
Is a prize still considered free if the winner must first pay an invoice and cover the exam fees themselves? And is a driving school allowed to advertise prizes starting at 2,200 euros if it also states that everything depends on the student’s driving skills? The Aschaffenburg Regional Court ruled against the driving school on both counts.
A Driver’s License “FOR FREE”
In December 2024, a driving school held a raffle for a complete driver’s license course. On its website and on Instagram, it advertised with the phrase “We’re giving away a complete driver’s license course—FOR FREE!” Anyone who registered between December 1, 2024, and December 23, 2024, was eligible to participate.
The terms and conditions were posted only on the website, directly below the promotional text. According to these terms, participants first had to pay the initial invoice, which the winner would be reimbursed for. The prize covered all driving school costs. However, the winner was responsible for covering the costs associated with scheduling the test and dealing with government agencies.
These terms were missing on Instagram. The only message there was: “Sign up, enter, and win! Link in the bio.”
Added to this was the promotional pricing. In the FAQ section of the website, under the question about costs, the driving school listed prices by driver’s license class, such as “Class B starting at €2,200.” This was followed by a sample calculation for Class B with total costs of 2,907 euros, plus approximately 270 euros for the application, passport photo, first-aid course, and exam fees.
What the trade association objected to
A qualified trade association—that is, an association authorized to enforce competition law claims on behalf of its members—issued two cease and desist letters to the driving school. The first cease and desist letter, dated December 16, 2024, concerned the contest; the second, dated February 25, 2025, concerned the prizes. The driving school rejected both.
The association considered the contest to be misleading because the prize was not, in fact, free. Furthermore, it was unclear which driver’s license class the prize applied to. The prize descriptions violated the Driving Instructor Act.
The driving school pointed out that the terms and conditions were clearly legible. They were also accessible on Instagram with just a few clicks. The prices were merely an example calculation, as indicated by the word “starting at.”
The Aschaffenburg Regional Court prohibited both forms of advertising
In its ruling dated July 9, 2026—Case No. 13 O 76/25— the Aschaffenburg Regional Court prohibited the driving school from using both forms of advertising. However, the association also lost the case in part. The driving school was not required to specify the driver’s license classes it offered.
When Is a Prize Truly Free?
In the court’s view, consumers were entitled to interpret “FOR FREE” to mean that the winner would receive a complete education at no cost whatsoever. That interpretation was incorrect. The winner had to pay the first bill right away. Exam and administrative fees were not covered at all.
Even the reimbursement of the first invoice did not help.
This is because, in the case of “free” driver’s education, the target audience generally does not expect to have to incur costs up front that will be reimbursed to them (at an undetermined time) if they win.
Furthermore, it remains unclear what services the first invoice covers and how much it amounts to. The word “complete” contradicts the audit and regulatory fees.
Why isn’t the link in the bio enough?
An explanatory note can indeed correct an eye-catching statement. In the case of online advertising, the court held that a text visible without scrolling or clicking is sufficient for this purpose. In some cases, even a link is sufficient.
On Instagram, however, there was no indication that the link led to the terms and conditions. There was also no mention of costs or “additional information.” Consumers could therefore have reasonably assumed that they already knew everything important.
The key factor is the enticement. An advertisement is considered misleading if it prompts consumers to even consider the offer in the first place. Providing additional information on the website later does not change this.
It is worth noting the part that the court dismissed. The driving school was not required to specify which driver’s license classes were covered. Consumers would in any case associate the prize with the class for which they enroll.
What are the rules for prices in driving school advertisements?
Driving schools are free to set their own prices, but under the Driving Instructor Act, they must display them according to a fixed format. This includes, for example, the base fee, the fees for test appointments, and the fees for special training drives on country roads, highways, and at night. If prices are listed in advertisements, this schedule applies there as well.
In the court’s view, a total price for the training is therefore impermissible, whether it includes the word “starting at” or not. The total price suggests an expected average price. The phrase “starting at” also gives the impression of a minimum price, even though a talented student driver could take lessons for less.
The addition regarding individual skill does not change this. The sample calculation also failed to meet the requirements. It is unclear what the “Basic” rate of 490 euros covers. “Special trips” and “practice trips” were not broken down according to the three legally defined driving situations. The court did not accept the argument that this was merely an example.
This is because even a sample calculation must be performed in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Conclusion
Anyone who promises a full driver’s license for free but requires exam fees and an upfront payment is promising too much. By way of comparison, we recently reported on a ruling in which advertising using the term “free” was permitted because the limits of the offer were clearly stated in the advertisement itself. That is precisely what was missing here.
When it comes to the total price, one might ask whether this strict approach truly serves the consumer’s interests. Learner drivers especially want to know roughly how much a driver’s license costs. A transparently explained sample calculation could be more helpful in this regard than a notice listing individual prices.
As far as competition law is concerned, the guidelines regarding the contest remain clear. What catches the eye must be accurate even without the fine print.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Competition law!
