Vouchers
for e-prescription
inadmissible.
Vouchers
for e-prescription
inadmissible.
from
Are mail-order pharmacies allowed to advertise with vouchers for e-prescriptions? What distinguishes a permissible discount from a prohibited promotional gift? And why does it matter that the value of the voucher exceeds the co-payment?
What was it about?
At the beginning of 2025, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy advertised a 25 euro voucher for the first e-prescription redemption via its app. The voucher was offset in the same order process – initially against the statutory co-payment, the remainder could be used for over-the-counter medicines and body care products. What was left over expired.
The Chamber of Pharmacies took action against this and obtained a temporary injunction. The mail-order pharmacy lodged an appeal – without success.
What did the court decide?
The OLG Karlsruhe has ruled Judgment of 09.12.2025 – Ref. 14 U 49/25 classified the voucher campaign as an inadmissible advertising gift under the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act . The advertising campaign violates the Medicinal Products Advertising Act and constitutes an unfair commercial act.
The central question: Is it an immediate price reduction?
No immediate cash rebate, but a deferred incentive
The mail-order pharmacy argued that this was a permissible instant discount in the same order process. The court clearly disagreed with this view.
The problem is that the statutory co-payment is a maximum of 10 euros per pack and is waived completely for patients exempt from co-payment. This means that there is regularly a considerable amount left over from the 25 euros. This is precisely where the incentive mechanism comes in.
The court found that customers are given an incentive to add further products to their shopping cart in order to fully utilize the value of the voucher. This incentive also expressly extends to non-prescription medicines. The promotion equated the purchase of medicines with the purchase of other consumer products.
Link with e-prescription is crucial
In contrast to a pure cash discount, an advantage is advertised here for the subsequent purchase of other goods that is unrelated to the required prescription medication. The fact that the discount is only granted in the same order process creates an even stronger incentive to order additional products.
The court emphasized: “The voucher campaign is linked to the submission of an e-prescription. It is precisely this link that creates the problematic incentive to order additional over-the-counter medication – which is not actually needed – in addition to the required medication.
In contrast to the granting of a (possibly permissible) cash discount, this is not an immediate price reduction, but rather a time-delayed process that is not substantially different from the customer receiving a voucher for a subsequent order process. In contrast to a cash discount, not only is the price of the medicine itself reduced, but an advantage is also advertised for the (immediately subsequent) purchase of other goods – including non-prescription medicines – which has no connection whatsoever with the purchase of the required prescription medicine.
What are the protective purposes of the HWG?
The court recalled the central protective purposes of the Medicinal Products Advertising Act:
The aim is to prevent consumers from being unobjectively influenced by advertising when deciding on remedies. The aim is also to counteract uncritical self-medication and the overuse or misuse of remedies that could be harmful to health.
An advertising campaign that equates medicinal products with other consumer products obscures the special nature of medicinal products and distracts from an objective examination of whether they are necessary to take at all.
What does this mean for other discount campaigns?
Pure OTC discount may have to be assessed differently
The mail-order pharmacy had argued that a promotion offering a 10 percent discount on non-prescription OTC products was permissible. The court expressly left this open, but pointed out a crucial difference:
With a pure OTC discount, there is no problematic link to the submission of an e-prescription for prescription drugs. It is this link that creates the additional incentive to order other products in addition to the required medication.
Differentiation from Federal Court of Justice case law
The OLG distinguished its decision from two recent Federal Court of Justice rulings:
In the Judgment of November 6, 2025 – Ref. I ZR 182/22 the Federal Court of Justice did not take a position on the specific issue because the relevant factual submission was only made in the appeal instance.
In the Judgment of July 17, 2025 – Ref. I ZR 74/24 involved discount campaigns that related exclusively to prescription medicines and only concerned the selection of pharmacies – a different constellation to the one at hand.
Conclusion
The ruling shows that the decisive factor is not the formal design as an “instant discount”, but the actual incentive effect. Promotional campaigns that are linked to e-prescriptions and offer voucher amounts that regularly exceed the co-payment carry the risk of being classified as unlawful promotional gifts – especially if the remaining amount can be used for over-the-counter medicines.
The ruling is not subject to appeal and is therefore legally binding. Mail-order pharmacies should have their discount campaigns carefully checked. The boundaries between permissible discounts and impermissible promotional gifts depend heavily on the specific design.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
