strike price
with
return date
strike price
with
return date
by
Is a retailer allowed to display a promotional price that it intends to charge only after the promotion ends? And can a competitor subsequently introduce additional legal grounds in summary proceedings without losing the urgency of the case? The Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled against the retailer on both counts.
One mattress, three prices
In January 2026, a retailer of mattresses and bedding advertised a pocket-spring mattress. A price of 222.00 euros was highlighted in red. Next to it was a crossed-out price of 499.00 euros marked with an asterisk. The asterisk note stated that the price would be valid again starting January 28, 2026. The promotion’s validity period was listed as January 5, 2026, through January 27, 2026.
Below that was another piece of information. The lowest price over the past 30 days was 199.00 euros. The promotional price was therefore higher than the price the retailer had charged immediately before the promotion. The advertisement appeared on three pages of the store: the product overview, the sale page, and the product detail page.
On January 20, 2026, a competitor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction—that is, a court order issued in summary proceedings. The Regional Court of Cologne prohibited the advertising in its judgment dated March 4, 2026—Case No. 84 O 3/26.
The retailer’s objection
The retailer appealed the ruling. She considered the complaint too vague because it linked three points of contention with the word “or.” Furthermore, she argued that the advertisement was not misleading and was not relevant to the purchase decision. She stated that she had in fact charged the price of 499.00 euros in the past.
Above all, she disputed the urgency of the matter. She had previously requested an extension of the deadline until January 20, 2026. Citing the urgency of the matter, the competitor granted an extension only until January 16, 2026. In the retailer’s view, the competitor subsequently failed to proceed with the proceedings expeditiously. In addition, there was an oversight: Instead of the product overview, the application included the sale page twice. The competitor did not correct this until February 2, 2026, and in doing so, cited the Price Indication Regulation for the first time.
The Cologne Higher Regional Court upholds the preliminary injunction
In its judgment dated October 2, 2026—Case No. 6 U 24/26 —the Cologne Higher Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
Can an application be supplemented after the urgency deadline has expired?
A preliminary injunction requires a sense of urgency. In competition law, the law presumes this urgency. However, the petitioner can rebut this presumption through his or her own delay. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne generally sets a one-month deadline for this.
The court did not see this as a self-contradiction. The competitor had waited only one business day after receiving the retailer’s response. Nor did the transposed attachment cause any harm. It was clear from the petition that all three pages were to be challenged. Furthermore, the correction dated February 2, 2026, was made within the one-month deadline.
The additional reasoning is noteworthy. Even after the deadline had passed, the court held that it would not have been detrimental to base the motion on the Price Indication Regulation. The motion and the facts of the case are identical; thus, the subject matter of the dispute is the same. The fact that the individual bases for the claims have different prerequisites does not alter this. In any case, the court must examine the violation from all relevant legal perspectives.
The court also rejected the objection regarding vagueness. The competitor had made it clear that it wanted the advertisement on each of the three pages prohibited separately. In doing so, it asserted three separate causes of action.
What does a crossed-out price with the addition “valid again” mean?
At the heart of the decision is the question of how consumers interpret a crossed-out price. In the court’s view, they regard it as the price the retailer previously charged. The court bases this on the case law of the Federal Court of Justice. However, immediately prior to the promotion, the price was 199.00 euros. The crossed-out price of 499.00 euros therefore misleads consumers regarding the price.
The asterisk note didn’t help the shopkeeper; in fact, it hurt her.
The note “Price valid again starting January 28, 2026” suggests—through the use of the word “again”—that this price was already available previously, specifically immediately before the promotional period.
In the court’s view, the red highlighting and the validity period reinforced this impression. The fact that the retailer had previously charged 499.00 euros at some point was irrelevant. That is not how the consumer would understand the statement. If the retailer intended to convey something else, it would have to make that clear and unambiguous.
Does the “30-day lowest price” clause save the crossed-out price?
Since 2022, a retailer must state the previous price when announcing a price reduction. According to the European Price Indication Directive, this is the lowest price from at least 30 days prior to the reduction. The German Price Indication Regulation implements this requirement. The retailer had correctly stated this amount as 199.00 euros.
That was not enough for the court. The additional mention of the 30-day low price did not alter the commercial relevance of the misleading representation. The consumer believed he was getting a special bargain. Misrepresentation regarding the price always influences the decision to purchase.
In addition, the court found a violation of the Price Indication Regulation. The reason cited was pricing that was unclear to consumers. This gave rise to a further claim for injunctive relief based on misleading conduct by omission under the Unfair Competition Act.
Conclusion
In this case, the decision comes as no surprise. The promotional price was higher than the price previously charged. Anyone who presents a price increase as a discount has little leeway under competition law. By using the word “again,” the retailer further reinforced the allegation of misleading advertising. We have previously reported on a case in which a crossed-out price became a pitfall.
From a procedural standpoint, it is interesting that the court allows new legal grounds to be added even after the deadline for urgent proceedings has passed. In this particular case, it was not an issue because the addition was made within the one-month deadline, but the question could become relevant in other cases.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Competition law!
