Potential for millions in damages: Stiftung Warentest loses due to faulty smoke detector test – court finds liability

A faulty smoke detector test by Stiftung Warentest has far-reaching legal consequences: The LG Frankfurt decided that the foundation is liable for deficient inspections by external testing institutes – a legally sensitive decision with signalling effect.

In its judgment of 13.03.2025, Az. 2-03 O 430/21, the Regional Court (LG) Frankfurt dealt with the claim of a medium-sized company against theStiftung Warentest(defendant), which published a product test in 2021 in which a smoke alarm detector of the plaintiff was rated as "defective". In a test published by Stiftung Warentest in the nationally distributed journal it publishes with the heading "Melde gehorsamst", it claimed, amongst other things, that the plaintiff's smoke detector "failed" because it "alarmed too late" and there was "no relying on it".

The test was based on inspections by a Belgian testing institute (ANPI), which in part deviated from DIN EN 14604:2005. In particular, in the case of test fires TF 3, the legally prescribed limit corridor was undercut, which made it impossible for the detectors to detect the smoke. Nevertheless, ANPI had considered these tests to be valid, which the court assessed as unjustifiable and objectively incorrect.

What was Stiftung Warentest accused of?

The defendant initially resisted the claims, but in the course of proceedings acknowledged the claim for an injunction and the reimbursement of pre-litigation legal fees. The court determined that the publication of the test constituted a wrongful interference in the plaintiff's business operations. It affirmed the liability of the defendant in principle for any damages resulting from this faulty test. Of crucial importance was that, in the court's view, Stiftung Warentest is subject to a special duty of care, since it presents itself as particularly trustworthy and competent and exercises considerable influence on the market.

Although there was no direct culpability of the defendant in the actual conduct of the test, it is liable for organizational fault, since it exercised insufficient controls over the testing institute. With regard to theright to freedom of expression, it applies in the case of publications that contain a particular risk potential and can be associated with special disadvantages for the party concerned (which deal with so-called "hot potatoes"), that media companies or publishers cannot simply transfer responsibility to a third party. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), companies must carry out essential tasks themselves. If essential tasks are nevertheless delegated, the culpability of the third party is imputed to the company as if the company itself had acted. Consequently, the selection of an accredited testing laboratory does not relieve Stiftung Warentest of its responsibility, in particular where there are deviations from normative testing methods.

The judges were also not convinced by the argument put forward by Stiftung Warentest that imposing its own testing obligations for the realization of the test would constitute a disproportionate burden. Stiftung Warentest did not demonstrate such a disproportionate burden in the present case.

Publication of the judgment was ordered, since the corrections already made by the defendant were insufficient to eliminate the reputational damage to the plaintiff.

The judgment is not final. Furthermore, the decision on the amount of damages compensation is still pending. The legal dispute was not yet ready for decision in this regard.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Regional Court (LG) Frankfurt represents a hitherto unique case law that holds product testing institutes in Germany particularly accountable. It shows that product testing institutes cannot rely solely on the accreditation of external testing laboratories, but rather bear independent testing and monitoring duties, especially when they present themselves as particularly trustworthy and competent. The court's assumption of organizational fault by Stiftung Warentest is novel in this clarity. For affected companies, this opens up a new avenue to challenge faulty test results – however, it remains to be seen whether higher courts will confirm this line.

Dealing with tests and test results entails legal risks. These risks can also have economically considerable effects. The lawyers and specialist lawyers of AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte from Stuttgart are pleased to advise you so that you can optimally utilize your own or third-party test results and, for example, in youradvertisingwith test results, avoid unnecessary legal risks.