Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on withdrawal information: what matters is the intelligibility of consumer information

The judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 07.01.2026 (Az. VIII ZR 62/25) brings a substantial clarification in distance selling law and has considerable practical significance for enterprises in e-commerce.

With this decision, the BGH departs from a purely formal approach and instead places the actual information function of the withdrawal information at the centre.

Facts

The judgment was based on a distance selling contract for the purchase of a new vehicle. The claimant, as a consumer, acquired a vehicle from a commercial car dealer at a purchase price of approximately 46,500 euros. The contract was concluded exclusively using distance communication means. The vehicle was handed over several months after conclusion of the contract.

Only several months after receipt of the vehicle did the buyer declare withdrawal of his declaration of intent directed at concluding the purchase contract. The decisive question was therefore whether the standard withdrawal period of 14 days had already begun to run upon handover of the vehicle or whether, due to defective withdrawal information, the extended withdrawal period of up to twelve months and 14 days still applied.

The point of dispute was the specific design of the withdrawal information. Although this was based on the statutory model, it deviated in individual formulations. For example, the existence of the right of withdrawal was made abstract dependent on the buyer being a consumer ('If you are a consumer...') and the contract being concluded exclusively using distance communication means. Moreover, the information contained references to return costs without specifying these in detail.

The claimant argued that the withdrawal information was not proper due to these deviations, so that the withdrawal period had not begun to run. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Stuttgart (decision of 11.03.2025, AZ. 6 U 57/24) followed this line of argument. However, the BGH has not confirmed this view.

The Federal Court of Justice's decision on withdrawal information

The BGH makes clear that not every error in the withdrawal information automatically means that the withdrawal period does not begin to run. Rather, what matters is whether the information, from the perspective of an average consumer, is suitable to inform him clearly and intelligibly about his right of withdrawal.

An extension of the withdrawal period is only to be considered if essential information is missing or the information is so unclear that the consumer cannot effectively exercise his right of withdrawal appropriately. Purely formal errors or minor deviations from the statutory model are not sufficient for this.

Particularly relevant to practice is the clarification that abstract formulations may also satisfy statutory requirements. The enterprise is not obliged to inform the consumer individually about whether in the concrete individual case all the requirements of the right of withdrawal are actually present. It is sufficient if the information describes the relevant requirements correctly in general form.

Thus the BGH shifts the standard of review away from a formalistic approach towards a functional assessment of consumer information.

Effects on competition law

The decision has immediate effects on competition law and previous warning practice. Whereas hitherto formal errors in withdrawal information were frequently characterised as a competition infringement, it will henceforth be more important to examine whether a relevant information deficiency exists that is liable to affect the consumer's capacity to make a decision.

This is likely to lead to warnings based solely on minor or purely formal deviations losing significantly in prospects of success. At the same time, however, the requirements for legal assessment in the individual case are increasing, since henceforth a substantive examination of the concrete consumer information will be required.

For practice, this means a certain relief for enterprises, but at the same time also a more differentiated and demanding legal assessment.

Practical significance for enterprises in e-commerce

For enterprises in e-commerce, the judgment brings a marked reduction in legal risks with regard to formal errors in withdrawal information.

At the same time, proper design of the withdrawal information remains a central component of legal compliance in online trade. What now matters more strongly is that the information is materially complete, intelligible and accurate and enables the consumer to exercise his right of withdrawal appropriately.

Enterprises are therefore well advised to review their withdrawal information regularly and, in doing so, not only to focus on formal compliance with statutory models, but in particular on the clarity and intelligibility of the formulations used.

Conclusion

With the judgment of 07.01.2026, the Federal Court of Justice undertakes a fundamental reassessment of the requirements for withdrawal information in distance selling. The previously widespread assumption of an automatic extension of the period in the event of errors is abandoned. In its place comes a differentiated approach that focuses on the actual quality and intelligibility of the information.

For enterprises, this means marked relief in respect of purely formal errors, without the requirements for legally sound design being reduced overall. Rather, the substantive quality of consumer information moves to the centre of legal assessment.

The decision once again illustrates the dynamic nature of competition law and the need to monitor legal developments in e-commerce continuously and to implement them in practice.

AVANTCORE advises enterprises comprehensively in competition law and e-commerce law. We support you in the legally sound design of your withdrawal information, your online shop and your consumer communication, as well as in the defence and enforcement of competition law claims.