Please
contact the
Manufacturer.
Please
contact the
Manufacturer.
by
Can an online retailer refer customers with a defective device to the manufacturer? And is a single misleading email from customer service enough to trigger a cease and desist letter and an injunction under the warranty?
A Refrigerator and a Standard Response
On February 4, 2024, a consumer purchased an LG fridge-freezer combo with the LG trademark from an electronics retailer’s online store. The price was 899.99 euros. A little over 16 months later, on June 24, 2025, he reported a technical problem via email. The customer was the head of the legal enforcement team at the Federation of German Consumer Organizations. However, he had made the purchase as a private individual.
On June 30, 2025, the retailer’s customer service department responded. The manufacturer offers an on-site repair service for large appliances. To assert his warranty and guarantee claims, the customer should contact the manufacturer directly. Another email dated July 8, 2025, also referred him to the manufacturer regarding a repair that would incur a charge, since the guarantee had expired.
The store’s FAQs also contained a similar note. It stated that the manufacturer offers a repair service for TVs, hi-fi systems, and large household appliances. In another FAQ, however, the retailer correctly explained the difference between a warranty and a guarantee.
What the consumer association demanded
On July 15, 2025, the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations issued a cease and desist letter to the retailer, to no avail. The association then filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction and reimbursement of a flat-rate fee for the cease and desist letter. The customer service response misled customers regarding the retailer’s own responsibility. For consumers, this meant additional effort and risk.
The dealer defended himself with several arguments. As a rule, he coordinates repair appointments directly with the customer and the manufacturer. The referral was made only because the customer wanted the matter resolved as quickly as possible. This was a matter of individual communication, and the second email was a mistake. Furthermore, as a consumer lawyer, the recipient was already aware of the difference between a warranty and a guarantee.
Ingolstadt Regional Court Prohibits the Manufacturer’s Referral
In its judgment dated July 24, 2026—Case No. 1 HK O 1352/25— the court granted the claim in full. The retailer is now prohibited from telling consumers who assert warranty claims due to a defect that they should contact the manufacturer directly.
Why is the reference to the warranty misleading?
The crux of the dispute is the difference between a warranty and a guarantee. A warranty is a legal right of the buyer against the seller. If the goods are defective, the buyer can demand that the seller repair or replace them, or, if necessary, rescind the contract, seek a price reduction, or claim damages. For movable goods such as household appliances, these claims generally expire two years after delivery. A manufacturer’s warranty, on the other hand, is a voluntary additional promise. It supplements the laws and does not replace them.
The Unfair Competition Act expressly identifies false or misleading statements regarding consumer laws as a form of deception. This applies in particular to warranty rights. In the court’s view, an average consumer would interpret the email to mean that the retailer has no obligation of its own, either under a guarantee or under a warranty. The wording contains no indication that this is merely a legal opinion.
Rather, based on the finding that the defendant has no obligation to reimburse the manufacturer, the customer is referred to the manufacturer.
The Chamber did not accept the argument that the dealer had only agreed on the specifics of the repair. No statement regarding the retailer’s own liability for costs could be inferred from the email. This issue was first raised in a later email dated July 3, 2025. The fact that the customer was not deterred does not alter the outcome.
Is a single email sufficient to constitute a violation of competition law?
Even statements made after the purchase may constitute a business practice to which competition law applies . The court considered the connection to the performance of the sales contract to be evident in this case. The email influenced the customer’s decision regarding against whom to assert his rights.
A systematic approach is not necessary. The Chamber based its decision on the European Court of Justice. In Case C-388/13 (UPC Magyarország), the Court ruled on April 16, 2015, that even providing incorrect information to a single consumer can constitute a misleading business practice. That case involved an incorrect statement by a cable network operator regarding the billing period.
The chamber therefore rejected the argument that this was merely an oversight or an atypical isolated case. The risk of recurrence stems from the infringement that has already occurred. For retailers, this means that every single customer service response can be the subject of a cease and desist letter.
Received a cease and desist letter?
How to react
You are best advised to
cease and desist letter!
A cease and desist letter, e.g. for infringement of competition law, industrial property rights or copyright, should always be taken seriously, as it can have considerable legal and financial consequences.
Timely and professional advice is crucial in order to minimize risks and develop the right strategy.
- Check cease and desist letter: Have the cease and desist letter legally checked. Not every cease and desist letter is justified, formally correct and abusive cease and desist letters are unlawful.
- Observe the deadline: Be sure to respond within the set deadline to avoid further legal action such as an injunction or a lawsuit.
- Check the cease-and-desist declaration: Do not sign a pre-formulated cease-and-desist declaration without legal advice. It could be too far-reaching and lead to considerable and lasting disadvantages. Once a cease-and-desist declaration has been signed, it is almost impossible to get rid of it and can result in considerable follow-up costs in the form of high contractual penalties.
- Strategy: Regardless of whether the cease and desist letter is justified or not, you should consider the right strategy for responding to the cease and desist letter with professional support. Many aspects play a role here. For example, there may be formal errors or the submission of a cease-and-desist declaration may involve incalculable risks.
Does it help if the customer is a lawyer?
The merchant had argued that the recipient had understood the legal situation based on his professional experience. The court left open the question of whether a different standard applies to individual communication than to advertising intended for the general public. This would be relevant, at most, if the sender could have recognized the recipient’s special understanding of the matter. The retailer had not presented any concrete evidence to that effect. Nor did the customer’s complaint provide any indication of this.
Conclusion
The fact that the seller is liable under the warranty follows directly from the law. What is particularly noteworthy is the clarity with which the court deems a single customer service email to be sufficient. This is unfavorable for online retailers because they send out thousands of such responses.
It remains unclear where the line is drawn regarding what constitutes permissible service information. Dealers have a legitimate interest in informing customers about the manufacturer’s prompt on-site service. The ruling says little about how such a notice must be worded to be legally sound. It is also unclear whether a different standard of interpretation applies to individual correspondence than to advertising.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
E-Commerce!
