Landmark Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) ruling on comparison portal: Check24 does not conduct comparative advertising

In the proceedings between HUK-Coburg and Check24, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) has decided that an online comparison portal that does not itself offer insurance products does not qualify as an advertiser within the meaning of comparative advertising.

What was at issue?
On 8 May 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) issued a landmark ruling (C-697/23) on the interpretation of Directive 2006/114/EG on misleading and comparative advertising. In the case HUK-Coburg against Check24, it was decided that an online comparison portal that does not itself offer insurance products does not qualify as an advertiser within the meaning of comparative advertising. The ruling has far-reaching significance for the legal admissibility of comparison portals, in particular in the insurance sector. It provides important guidance for companies engaged in online intermediation and product evaluation.

Tariffs rated on the Check24 comparison portal under scrutiny

The claimant, HUK-Coburg insurance, objected to the motor vehicle insurance comparison portal operated by Check24. The portal rated tariffs from various providers with so-called tariff ratings. This assessment was carried out using a points system with grades from "very good" to "satisfactory". HUK-Coburg saw in this an inadmissible comparative advertising under § 6 UWG and demanded the cessation of this representation. Check24, for its part, maintained that it was acting merely as a broker without offering insurance products itself.

Decision of the EuGH: No comparative advertising without competitive relationship

1. Directive 2006/114/EG

According to Art. 2(c) of this Directive, comparative advertising exists only when a competitor or its products are identified. In practice, this means: there must be a competitive relationship.

2. Decision

The EuGH clarified: Check24 is not a competitor of HUK-Coburg, since it does not offer its own insurance services. The mere intermediary activity and the mere product comparison without its own offering result in the absence of a competitive relationship in competition law terms. Accordingly, an online comparison service does not fall within the definition of comparative advertising if the portal is not operating in the same market.

Significance for the legal assessment of online comparison services

The EuGH ruling creates legal certainty for operators of comparison portals and rating platforms. As long as a portal:

• does not offer its own competing products or services, and
• merely processes or intermediates information from third parties,

it does not conduct comparative advertising within the meaning of EU law. The protective provisions of Directive 2006/114/EG then do not apply. Nevertheless, national unfair competition law (for example, misleading statements under § 5 UWG) continues to apply.

Practical guidance for companies and operators of comparison portals

For providers of comparison or rating services, the following applies: As long as you do not yourself compete with the companies being compared, you enjoy greater legal freedom in the design and presentation of product comparisons – including point systems or tariff ratings.

And what should you do with this information?

Not only companies operating an online comparison portal should ensure that comparison criteria are transparent and comprehensible in order not to violate misleading practices prohibitions. In case of uncertainty, a legal review of the online offering is recommended.

Our solicitors and specialist solicitors at AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart are experts in competition law and IT law. This helps to avoid cease-and-desist letters and legal disputes.