€25 Voucher for e-Prescriptions Prohibited – Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe Tightens the Limits of Discount Advertising under the Medicines Advertising Act

The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe (OLG Karlsruhe) prohibits a €25 voucher for e-prescriptions as impermissible advertising gift under § 7 Abs. 1 Satz 1 HWG.

With its judgment of 9 December 2025 (Az. 14 U 49/25) the OLG Karlsruhe has rendered a landmark decision of high practical relevance on discount advertising and voucher promotions by mail-order pharmacies. The Senate makes clear: a €25 voucher for redemption of an e-prescription violates the advertising gift prohibition of § 7 HWG and is equally unlawful under competition law. The decision fits seamlessly into recent jurisprudence of the highest courts (we have already reported on a more recent judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH)) and at the same time sets a clear signal against creative circumvention schemes in the e-prescription context.

Background: e-prescription, competition and the temptation of value-based advertising

Since the nationwide introduction of the e-prescription competition between local pharmacies and foreign mail-order pharmacies has noticeably intensified. In particular, voucher schemes and discount models are deliberately deployed to influence the decision of insured persons in favour of a particular provider. It is precisely here that the Medicines Advertising Act steps in with regulatory measures.

The legislature attaches outstanding importance to the objectivity of pharmaceutical decision-making. § 7 HWG is intended to prevent financial benefits – even in seemingly moderate form – from tempting patients towards excessive use, misuse or stockpiling of medicines. The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe demonstrates that these protective mechanisms apply without restriction in digital distribution and in e-prescription procedures.

The specific case: €25 voucher for e-prescriptions as an incentive for app-based redemption

In the dispute at hand, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy had advertised to statutory health insurance beneficiaries by email. It promised a €25 voucher for e-prescriptions if the e-prescription were redeemed for the first time via its own app. The voucher was credited immediately in the ordering process, could be used not only for prescription-only medicines but also for OTC products and other goods and expired if the order value was insufficient to use it fully.

A pharmacy chamber considered this a clear breach of the Medicines Advertising Act and successfully sought an interim injunction against the mail-order pharmacy. The appeal against this order failed before the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe.

Central legal assessment: impermissible advertising gift under § 7 HWG

The Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe unambiguously qualifies the e-prescription voucher as an advertising gift within the meaning of § 7 Abs. 1 Satz 1 HWG. What matters is not the technical design of the discount, but its economic and psychological effect on the consumer.

The Senate emphasises that the concept of advertising gift must be interpreted broadly and encompasses any non-charged economic benefit which the recipient perceives as a gift. This is precisely the case with a value voucher. The fact that the e-prescription voucher is redeemed in the same ordering process does not change its character. What is decisive is that the benefit extends beyond the actual need.

Not a permissible cash discount, but an incentive to purchase additional items

Particularly instructive is the distinction from permissible direct price reductions. In the Senate's view, the exception under § 7 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 lit. a HWG covers exclusively directly price-reducing measures, not, however, vouchers which can only be economically utilised through additional purchases.

Particularly in the case of statutory health insurance beneficiaries, the Co-payment for prescription medications regularly between €5 and €10. A voucher for e-prescriptions worth €25 therefore inevitably creates a substantial incentive to place additional products – in particular non-prescription medications – in the shopping basket. The Senate formulates this here with exceptional clarity: the discount does not act in isolation, but rather directs consumer behaviour in a health law sensitive direction.

Protection against self-medication and equating medications with consumer goods

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Karlsruhe explicitly places the decision in the context of current Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) case law. In the Senate's view, a voucher for e-prescriptions that equates OTC medications with other consumer goods obscures their special therapeutic character. The consumer is distracted from a sober examination of medical necessity.

In doing so, the Senate takes up a core principle of pharmaceutical advertising law: medications are not ordinary goods. Whoever effectively turns them into "impulse purchases" through an e-prescription voucher exceeds the limit permitted under competition law.

No relief through Union law or price maintenance arguments

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Karlsruhe also rejected Union law objections. The Medicines Advertising Act recognises an independent, more broadly defined concept of advertising than Directive 2001/83/EG. The fact that the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) classifies pharmacy advertising differently in some respects does not change the fact that § 7 HWG is deliberately strictly designed and also covers advertising by pharmacies for medications.

Likewise, it could remain open whether there is additionally a violation of price regulations under SGB V. The impermissibility already resulted from the violation of the advertising gift prohibition.

Practice note: Clear red line for voucher models

The decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Karlsruhe is a clear signal to the market. Whoever links the redemption of e-prescriptions with high-value vouchers or discounts such as the disputed €25 e-prescription voucher, puts themselves at considerable cease-and-desist and litigation risk.

Mail-order pharmacies are well advised to restrict promotional measures strictly to permissible, genuine price reductions and to avoid any coupling between prescription redemption and benefits for OTC products or other goods. For pharmacy chambers, competitors and associations, the judgment simultaneously provides a sound basis for argument to take action against aggressive discount strategies.

Conclusion: The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Karlsruhe makes unmistakably clear that the e-prescription is no gateway for value advertising. The boundary between permissible competition and impermissible advertising gifts runs where financial advantages degrade the medication from a medicament to a loss leader.

Our law firm, which specialises inter alia in competition law and pharmaceutical advertising law, AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart, is happy to assist pharmacies, mail-order retailers and associations in the legally compliant design of advertising measures relating to the e-prescription as well as in the enforcement or defence of competition law claims.