Thanks to Legal Tech – "Get Rid of Fines for Free"?

The advertised services of a legal tech portal for traffic law were not quite as free as claimed. Corresponding advertising statements made by the portal were deemed misleading by the Regional Court (LG) Hamburg.

A legal tech company, which according to its own information operates the largest German portal for free review of traffic fine matters on its website, advertised its services with the following advertising statement:

"Get Rid of Fines for Free"
"We assume all costs incurred"
"Our service is absolutely free for you"
"Our lawyers process your case free of charge for you from lodging an objection through to termination of proceedings"

In reality, fees were only waived if the prospects of success of proceedings against the traffic fine notice were deemed sufficient after the initial legal assessment. If the prospects of success were rejected and the person seeking legal assistance nevertheless wished to proceed against the traffic fine notice, he had to bear the further costs himself.

The German Bar Association (DAV) therefore considered theadvertising statementsto be misleading. The Regional Court (LG) Hamburg agreed with the DAV's view.

Court Decision – Advertising Statements are Misleading

By judgment of 10.10.017 – 312 O 477/16, the Regional Court (LG) Hamburg confirmed the cessation claims of the DAV.

Since the statements were made without restriction, there is a risk that at least relevant portions of the targeted traffic understand the highlighted part to mean that the traffic fine could be defended against in any case without costs. In reality, however, costs are only assumed if the portal operators attribute overriding prospects of success to the respective procedural step and deem it to be economically worthwhile. This follows from theT&Cs.

The advertising environment of the statements also did not make it unambiguously clear that the service would not remain free of charge at all times.

It could not be assumed in any case that customers as a whole would be aware that penalty notices could also be justified and that proceedings against them could also be unsuccessful.

Conclusion

The Legal Tech portal advertised exclusively with free services in the present case. A clarification that the customer could nevertheless incur costs was lacking. The court therefore considered the statements as a whole to be misleading.

The portal operators obviously do not see it this way and continue to advertise with the contested statements.