Judgement of AG Marburg (Local Court Marburg) of 08/02/2010, file number: 91 C 981/09

The provider of a website where apparently free downloads are offered, however misleads the customer regarding the true costs and lures him into a chargeable subscription, makes himself liable to prosecution because of fraud, according to § 263 StGB (German Criminal Code). A lawyer who, on behalf of the provider, warns the non-paying customers and even tries to enforce the demands in court, makes himself also liable to prosecution because of accessory to fraud.

Judgement of LG Düsseldorf (Regional Court Dusseldorf) of 28/08/2009, file number: 38 O 34/09

In a community of registered consumers, the invoices for the use of the network are charged after being informed about a change in the general terms and conditions which allows the chargeability. For the dishonesty of this demand it is not enough that this is based in a contract which is created by unfair methods. Through the sending of the unjustified demand, also the consumer has been used in his lack of experience or gullibility or in a dilemma.

Judgement of AG München (Local Court Munich) of 18/02/2009, file number: 6 W 4/09

If an Internet site promotes an inexpensive “test membership”, a clause about monetary compensation which is hidden in the following continuous text would be considered as astonishing.
The same applies to a lengthening clause which is hidden in the heading “Payment and Prices” and is not mention under the category “Contract Period” or “Contract Lengthening”.

Judgement of OLG Frankfurt/Main (HRC Frankfurt/Main) of 04/12/2008, file number 6 U 187/07

In case of the as “cost traps” known on the Internet, the supplier of the particular site has no right to payment against the user if no clear monetary compensation in the offer or on the web page is given, and a clear  payment duty is missed. The same applies particularly when the supplier of the site wants to deceive the user intentionally about the monetary compensation.