Stricter

Requirements for

Doctor seals.

30. July 2026

of

Clemens Pfitzer

Should a publisher be allowed to sell seals of approval whose valuation criteria no one can understand? And what does this mean for the awards that lawyers, tax advisors, and tradespeople use to promote their services?

What the dispute was about

The Wettbewerbszentrale has filed a lawsuit against the publisher of the magazine FOCUS GESUNDHEIT. Once a year, the publisher releases a list of doctors organized by medical specialty and awards the doctors listed in it the “FOCUS Top Physician” and “FOCUS Recommendation” seals. In exchange for an annual license fee, the honorees are permitted to use these seals in their advertising.

The complaint was not directed at the list itself, but rather at the offering and provision of the seals for the years 2020 and 2021. The Competition Center considered the award criteria to be inappropriate and the design of the seals to be misleading. The Munich I Regional Court granted the injunction in its ruling of February 13, 2023, Case No. 4 HK O 14545/21. We have already reported on this first-instance ruling; you can read about it in our article “Is the Focus Top Doctors Seal Misleading?” The Munich Higher Regional Court dismissed the action with Judgment of May 22, 2025, Case No. 29 U 867/23 e , dismissed.

What the Federal Court of Justice Ruled

The First Civil Division of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which is responsible for competition law, in its ruling of July 30, 2026 – Case No. I ZR 130/25 – the Court of Appeal’s ruling was overturned and the case was remanded to the Higher Regional Court, as stated in the press release . This does not mean that the seals are invalid. What has been decided is the standard against which the appellate court must now reassess them. Even though the full text of the reasoning for the decision is not yet available, conclusions can already be drawn.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) treats the two seals as test logos with health-related claims. Such advertising is subject to particularly strict requirements regarding accuracy, unambiguity, and clarity. This is justified by the high priority given to health and by the fact that, based on experience, health-related advertising is particularly effective. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of the media do not preclude this strict standard.

What Was Criticized About the Testing Procedure

In the Senate’s view, the Court of Appeals had not established with sufficient certainty that the publisher’s procedure met these requirements. The previous distinction as a “FOCUS Top Physician” was already sufficient for inclusion on the list. It remained unexamined what criteria were used to award points to the 75,000 physicians selected from the research pool, from whom 30,000 were then selected in the next stage and asked to provide self-reported information. Furthermore, it remained unexamined that the assessment of treatment performance was based primarily on these self-reports.

The second point of contention is the design. The seals contained an unrestricted, generalized quality designation and did not indicate the criteria or whose subjective assessments the result was based on. They could therefore claim a level of professional authority that is not justified. The Federal Court of Justice’s press release formulates the Senate’s key ruling as follows.

Why the Ranking Itself Isn’t the Problem

The list of doctors was never the subject of the lawsuit, and the Federal Court of Justice draws the line precisely at this point. According to this ruling, the publication of editorial content by a media company does not constitute a commercial act, but rather a necessary consequence of proper journalistic practice and is protected by freedom of the press. Thus, lists of the best, rankings, and editorial recommendations remain permissible, even if they are based on subjective criteria. The Munich I Regional Court had already emphasized in the first instance that rankings of doctors and lawyers, as value judgments, are generally permissible.

The Senate takes a different view of the provision of the seals for a fee. It considers this to be a commercial act, benefiting both the advertising physicians and the publisher’s own company. While the publisher does utilize the results of editorial research in this process, However, the initial journalistic work takes such a back seat to the marketing of an independent product that it must be regarded as a commercial act. The critical point, therefore, is not the review itself, but its transformation into a paid advertising medium.

Does this spell the end for the doctor’s seal?

No. The Federal Court of Justice did not issue a ban, but rather overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case. The Senate’s wording regarding misleading claims is left open. It is possible that the test logos are misleading, and the publisher may have established the risk of misleading the public.

The Munich Higher Regional Court must now make further findings regarding the misleading nature of the claims. Only then will it be clear whether the use of such seals must be discontinued. Therefore, anyone currently advertising with such a seal is not necessarily in the wrong, but should continue to monitor the situation.

How much information must be included on the seal?

This question is central following the decision, because the Senate reviews the testing procedures and the design separately. A well-structured selection process cannot save a seal if the seal itself makes an unrestricted claim. Conversely, a seal that discloses its basis can claim less authority and thus raise fewer expectations.

In practice, this amounts to a conflict of objectives. A seal is effective precisely because of its brevity and clarity. A note indicating that the award is based primarily on peer recommendations, patient reviews, and self-reported information undermines precisely that effect. The Senate has not ruled on how detailed such a notice must be or whether a reference to an explanation on the Internet is sufficient. Case law will have to answer this question in the future.1

What does this mean for certifications in other industries?

Licensed seals of this kind have long been available not only to doctors. Similar certifications are awarded to attorneys, as well as to tax advisors, consulting firms, and skilled trades businesses, and are also used as employer seals.

The stricter standard formulated by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is based, as far as can be seen so far, on health-related considerations and therefore cannot be applied to these seals without further consideration. The second principle, however, is formulated in a way that is neutral with respect to specific industries. Anyone who makes seals available for advertising in exchange for payment is acting in a commercial capacity and cannot, in this respect, invoke freedom of the press. This applies to publishers, ranking providers, and review portals, regardless of the professional group being recognized.

In addition, competition law expressly covers statements regarding the results or essential components of tests, without distinguishing between industries. Even outside the context of healthcare advertising, the decisive factor remains whether a seal claims an authority that is not supported by the underlying procedure. If you would like to have the permissibility of a seal reviewed, please see our advice on competition law.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

Competition law!

Contact form

Call now!