Liability
for errors in
Google Ads.
Liability
for errors in
Google Ads.
of
Is an online retailer liable for incorrect advertisements that Google automatically places based on the retailer’s product data? What applies if the retailer has neither created the advertisements himself nor checked their content? What consequences does this ruling have for companies that enter into advertising partnerships with platforms such as Google?
.
What is it about?
A mail order company concluded a cooperation agreement with Google in which it was stipulated that it was to provide Google with product information on an ongoing basis. Google used this data to automatically create advertisements and place them on its own websites and on sites in the so-called Google Partner Network. In 2023, advertisements for the retailer’s household appliances appeared on a price comparison platform, including a fridge-freezer combination and an undercounter dishwasher. These advertisements stated the energy efficiency class “D”, but lacked the graphical representation of the efficiency spectrum in the form of an arrow, as required by European law. A competition association issued a cease and desist letter to the retailer. The retailer denied responsibility: it had neither placed the ads itself nor commissioned Google to do so, but had done so automatically.
Legal background
Competition law contains detailed regulations on what information retailers must include in advertising for energy-related products. According to European regulations, the energy efficiency class must be displayed graphically with an arrow and spectrum in visually perceptible advertising, including on the internet. Simply stating the efficiency class without the prescribed graphic element is not sufficient. In this case, however, it was not this substantive legal question that was decisive, but the upstream question: Can the retailer be held responsible for advertisements that Google created and placed independently?
The decision
The Federal Court of Justice overturned Judgment of 11.03.2026 – Ref. I ZR 28/25 reversed the decision of the Bamberg Higher Regional Court and referred the case back. The Higher Regional Court had denied liability on the part of the retailer because Google was not to be regarded as an “agent” within the meaning of competition law.
The Federal Court of Justice took a different view. It clarified that the retailer had expanded its own business operations by concluding the cooperation agreement. Anyone who outsources the task of product advertising, which is in principle their responsibility, even partially, to a third party and provides them with the necessary information, makes this third party an agent within the meaning of competition law.
If the business owner commissions a third party in whole or in part with the task of advertising his product range, which is basically his responsibility, and provides the third party with the necessary information, he is thereby expanding his business operations.
It is irrelevant that Google had considerable leeway of its own within the cooperation agreement – for example with regard to the timing, channel and design of the ads. Rather, the decisive factor was what influence the retailer could and should have secured. The fact that Google could also place ads for competitor products in addition to the retailer’s ads did not change the position of the commissioner. The Bamberg Higher Regional Court must now clarify whether the infringement of competition law has actually occurred and whether the retailer is liable.
What does this mean for companies?
The ruling has far-reaching consequences for all companies that transmit product data to Google or other platforms and use their automated advertising functions. They cannot claim that they neither designed nor commissioned the specific advertisements.
Anyone who uses such services and transmits product data is responsible for what is done with it. Companies must ensure that the product data they transmit contains all legally required information. This also includes the correct information on energy efficiency. Where possible, companies should also agree provisions in cooperation agreements with advertising platforms that guarantee the correct presentation of all mandatory information by the platform.
The ruling is also relevant for operators of price comparison portals and similar platforms: According to this decision, the question of liability for incorrect advertisements is not resolved by a complex division of labor, but is thrown back on the original initiator.
Conclusion
The Federal Court of Justice’s message is clear: those who outsource advertising remain responsible. Otherwise, companies could systematically circumvent the obligation to provide correct product information through complex advertising partnerships.
The decision is likely to lead to a considerable compliance effort for companies that use such advertising platforms. It is likely to be difficult for companies to hold providers such as Google Ads accountable, as experience has shown that Google offers no room for negotiation here. In such cases, companies will have to consider whether to take the risk of such advertising partnerships or take more care of the advertising content themselves and terminate these advertising partnerships.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
