Regional court ruling: Automatic reply email may be unlawful

It is not a good idea for service providers to set up an automatic reply function for an email address specified in their legal notice. The Regional Court of Munich I recently ruled that such an auto-reply constitutes a violation of Section 5a of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG).

This states that anyone who misleads a consumer or other market participant by withholding material information is acting unfairly. The judges consider this offense to be fulfilled by the refusal to reply to a personal email.

The case stems from a complaint by the Wettbewerbszentrale, which represents around 800 associations, chambers of industry and commerce and around 1,200 companies. The "self-regulatory institution of the economy" objected to the automatic email responses of a well-known provider of online services for performance and cyber security.

Customers received an automatic reply

The provider provided a specific email address for contacting them in the legal notice of its website. However, customers only received an automatic response to letters, stating that inquiries would not be accepted via this address. Instead, alternative contact channels had to be used, such as a special form.

According to the Wettbewerbszentrale, the regional court clarified in its ruling from February 25 (Ref.: 33 O 3721/24) that an imprint always requires a functioning email address. This is derived from Section 5 of the Digital Services Act (DDG).

According to this, providers of business-related online services must, among other things, always have information available "that enables quick electronic contact and direct communication with them, including the address for electronic mail". According to the judges, such an address must make it possible to contact the provider without being restricted by character limits or predefined categories. A reference to other communication channels is not sufficient.

Availability by email only feigned

If inquiries sent to the email address provided only generate an automated response with a reference to alternative contact options, there is a lack of genuine availability by email, according to the decision, which is not yet legally binding. This violates the legal requirements for fast electronic contact and direct communication.

The practice complained of only feigns an apparent availability, which in reality represents an additional hurdle for communication with the provider. Even a potential change in communication behavior cannot change the obligation to send e-mails.

"In 2025, email will still be fundamental for third parties to be able to quickly and easily draw a provider's attention to legal violations and problems," says the Wettbewerbszentrale, welcoming the decision. "A complete legal notice with functioning communication channels is and remains correspondingly important."

Ten years ago, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that companies are not allowed to advertise in automated email correspondence with customers. A policyholder had previously complained that he had received advertising for weather forecasts via text message and app following inquiries to customer service via auto-reply.

(vbr)