Federal Court of Justice (BGH): Advertising for Medical Cannabis – Intermediary Platforms in Focus of HWG

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) sets clear limits for digital platforms and telemedicine providers: the promotion of cannabis therapies to patients remains impermissible – even without reference to concrete products.

Legal Framework: Public Advertising for Prescription Medicines Remains Strictly Prohibited

The decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 26 March 2026 (Az. I ZR 74/25) moves in the tension between pharmaceutical advertising law, competition law and the most recent cannabis legislation. Particularly decisive in this respect is the prohibition of public advertising for prescription medicines pursuant to § 10 Abs. 1 HWG.

This provision prohibits all advertising outside professional circles for medicines that are only available on medical prescription. The purpose of this provision is the protection of public health, by preventing patients from being induced by advertising influences to self-medication or to inappropriate demand for certain medicines.

This regulation is complemented by § 3a UWG, according to which violations of market conduct rules are also anticompetitive. The pharmaceutical advertising law prohibition constitutes such a market conduct rule. The prohibition is also secured at Union level by Art. 88 of Directive 2001/83/EG.

Particularly relevant in the present context is that medical cannabis, despite decriminalisation and reclassification under the MedCanG, remains subject to prescription. Accordingly, it continues to fall within the scope of the advertising prohibition of § 10 Abs. 1 HWG.

What the Case Was About: Platform Model for the Intermediation of Cannabis Therapies

The defendant operated an online portal through which patients could specifically request treatments with medical cannabis from cooperating physicians. On the website, concrete symptoms and medical conditions were named in relation to which a cannabis therapy "could be helpful". At the same time, the option was provided via a button to submit treatment requests directly.

The platform was part of a group that covered substantial parts of the value chain in the cannabis market, including wholesale and pharmacy intermediation. The Competition Centre (Wettbewerbszentrale) regarded this as impermissible public advertising for prescription medicines and claimed injunctive relief against the defendant.

Whereas the Regional Court (LG) had initially dismissed the action, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt upheld the claim. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed this decision.

Legal Considerations of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH): Broad Interpretation of the Concept of Advertising

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) makes clear that the concept of "advertising for medicines" must be interpreted broadly. It encompasses any measure that is intended to promote the prescription, sale or consumption of medicines.

Particularly noteworthy is that the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) explicitly emphasises:

The advertising need not relate to a concrete product or a particular manufacturer. It is sufficient that a product group – here medical cannabis – is advertised in individualised form.

The court classified the disputed content as product-related advertising, because:

• The presentation of specific indications and the emphasis of therapeutic benefits were deliberately aimed at promoting the use of cannabis as a medicinal product
• The platform actively instructed users to request medical prescriptions
• The content was not presented in a neutral-informational manner, but rather in a sales-promoting manner

According to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the decisive factor is the deliberate influencing of patient behaviour. The prohibition under § 10 HWG is intended precisely to prevent patients from pressuring their doctor to prescribe a particular medicinal product.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) also rejected the defendant's argument that the decision to prescribe lies solely with the doctor. Rather, the influencing of this medical prescription decision via the patient is a central risk that the advertising prohibition is intended to counteract.

No privilege through new cannabis legislation

Of particular practical significance is the Federal Court of Justice (BGH)'s finding that the amendments made by the Cannabis Act (CanG) do not result in any relaxation of advertising law.

Although the previous advertising prohibition under § 14 BtMG for medicinal cannabis has lapsed, the stricter medicinal product advertising law prohibition under § 10 HWG remains fully applicable.

Thus, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) firmly rejects all attempts to derive a liberalisation of advertising from the partial legalisation of cannabis.

Practical recommendation: caution with platform models and indication presentations

This decision has significant implications for digital business models in the healthcare sector. Providers of platforms, telemedicine services or mediation portals should urgently note:

Any presentation of indications in connection with prescription-only medicinal products can already be qualified as impermissible advertising. The combination of information and direct possibility of action (e.g. appointment booking or inquiry button) significantly increases the risk. Even an apparently neutral presentation can be impermissible if it highlights benefits one-sidedly or encourages demand

Especially in the field of medicinal cannabis, given the particular market dynamics, enhanced regulatory and competition law scrutiny is to be expected.

Our expertise in medicinal and pharmaceutical advertising law

As a law firm specializing inter alia in pharmaceutical and medicinal product advertising law as well as competition law the experts at AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart advise companies comprehensively on the legally compliant design of marketing strategies, platform models and digital health offerings.

We review your external presentation for HWG compliance, develop legally secure communication concepts and represent you effectively in competition law disputes – both preventively and in the event of conflict.

Contact us before innovative business models turn into costly legal disputes.