Higher Regional Court (OLG) Stuttgart halts example price advertising at ALDI – price clarity before advertising effect

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Stuttgart has prohibited advertising with a so-called 'example price' for pre-packaged foodstuffs.

ALDI had advertised bio filet steaks with a conspicuous price indication that, according to the court, violated the Price Indication Ordinance. The judgment shows: anyone using example prices risks legal consequences – and at the same time reveals how little confidence courts place in consumers.

The Consumer Centre Baden-Württemberg sued ALDI SE & Co. KG because the discount retailer offered bio filet steaks at different weights in a store – however, advertised at the shelf with a highlighted example price of €6.96 for 162 g. According to the consumer advocates, this presentation misled customers about the actual purchase price.

The OLG Stuttgart (Judgment of 11. 09. 2025, Az. 2 U 98/24) sided with the Consumer Centre. ALDI was ordered to discontinue such price representations. The Higher Regional Court thereby corrected the decision of the Regional Court (LG) Stuttgart of 06. June 2024, Az.: 37 O 3/24 KfH, which had initially rejected the claim. The judges made clear: Advertising with a striking visual presentation of only an exemplary price is unfair if it misleads the consumer about the actual total price.

The element of misleading conduct

The court established that the total price pursuant to the Price Indication Ordinance (§ 3 PAngV) is essential consumer information. If this price is overlaid by an optically dominant example price, the statutory price clarity requirement is not met.

Although a correct unit price was indicated on every package, the panel found that this information was displaced by the large price sign at the shelf. The example price '€6.96' drew customers' attention so strongly that they no longer perceived the actual price on the goods.

The judges stated clearly:

'The graphic dominance of the indication '€6.96' overlays the general experience of consumers that meat prices vary according to weight.'

Even the addition 'e.g.' changed nothing. Because the abbreviation was placed after the weight specification ('162 g e.g.'), many customers understood it according to the court to mean that only the weight was variable, not the price. This conveyed a false impression of a fixed unit price.

Advertising with example price – not fundamentally prohibited, but risky

The OLG Stuttgart clarified that advertising with an example price is not per se prohibited. However, what is decisive is whether the design misleads the consumer about the actual total price.

The judges emphasised: a considerable proportion of consumers cannot correctly assess mathematical price relationships – such as those from unit price information. This undermines price transparency. The advertised example price has the effect in practice of a fixed final price and influences the purchasing decision.

ALDI thereby violated §§ 5a, 5b UWG in conjunction with the Price Indication Ordinance, in the panel's view. The consequence: the example price sign was classified as unfair and anticompetitive.

Consequences for retailers and advertising

The judgment has signal effect: companies may only use example prices with the greatest care. Every price indication must be clear, unambiguous and correctly attributed. In particular, with products of variable weight – such as meat, cheese or fruit – an unclear example price can quickly be deemed deceptive.

The Higher Regional Court judges emphasised the obligation to ensure price clarity:

• The total price must be clearly identifiable for every package.
• An example price must not be prominently positioned if this creates a false impression.
• The addition 'e.g.' must be placed in such a way that it becomes unambiguously clear that the price too is only exemplary.

Companies should therefore refrain from conspicuous example prices or use them only in combination with clear explanations.

Critical conclusion: consumer protection or distrust?

The judgment undoubtedly strengthens consumer protection, but has a downside: it assumes the consumer exhibits high inattentiveness and limited comprehension. The judges proceed on the assumption that many customers cannot even recognise simple price differences.

This may apply in individual cases, but leads to over-regulation in competition law. Companies increasingly lose design freedom, while the consumer – contrary to reality – is regarded as particularly in need of protection.

Advertising with an example price thus remains permissible, but is legally risky. Retailers should therefore have their pricing structure reviewed by legal counsel at an early stage to avoid expensive cease-and-desist letters.

We are attorneys in competition law and provide comprehensive advice to companies on the legally compliant design of price indications, advertising and online presences. Whether cease-and-desist letter, court proceedings or preventive compliance consultation – we competently and economically represent your interests.