Avoiding warning letters in your online shop: the most common legal mistakes

A warning letter is neither a letter from a public authority nor a legal claim. It is an out-of-court request to refrain from a specific course of action, usually accompanied by a pre-formulated cease-and-desist declaration, a short deadline and a statement of costs. In e-commerce, it is rarely issued for serious offences. It is issued due to procedural errors: an outdated legal text, a missing price indication, or a button that is not where it should be.

It is rarely the first warning letter that proves costly. What is costly is the cease-and-desist declaration that usually accompanies it. Anyone who signs it is generally bound by it permanently, and any subsequent breach triggers a contractual penalty. This is precisely why it is worth knowing the typical mistakes before the letter arrives.

This makes the issue manageable. Most grounds for warnings are well-known, documented and can be rectified with a manageable amount of effort. This article categorises recurring errors by obligation and legal basis, lists the deadlines that were newly introduced in 2025 and 2026, and specifies what needs to be done in each case. This is not legal advice for individual cases, but rather an overview of the areas where German online shops are most frequently vulnerable.

Who issues warnings, and what is actually at stake

Not everyone is authorised to issue warnings. Since the 2021 reform of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) (Act to Strengthen Fair Competition), the group of authorised parties has been narrowed down in Section 8(3) of the UWG. Three groups are eligible: genuine competitors who offer comparable goods or services to a significant extent and not merely on an occasional basis; qualified trade associations that are registered on an official list maintained by the Federal Office of Justice; and qualified organisations such as consumer protection associations. Any third party with no connection to competition cannot effectively issue you with a warning letter. In practice, most warning letters come from direct competitors and from a handful of specialised associations; the Competition Centre and the IDO Association regularly feature in this context.

This same reform has shifted the burden of costs in your favour. Under Section 13(4) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG), there is no entitlement to reimbursement of warning letter costs in two categories of cases where a competitor issues a warning letter: in the case of breaches of information and labelling obligations in e-commerce and telemedia (including the legal notice requirement), as well as in the case of GDPR breaches involving companies with, as a rule, fewer than 250 employees. The classic ‘formality error’ warning letter due to an incomplete legal notice therefore no longer generates any fee for the party issuing the warning. This reduces the financial incentive for mass warning letters in this area.

However, it does not remove either the obligation to cease and desist or the contractual penalty. And so we return to the actual risk: the cease-and-desist declaration. It is generally binding in perpetuity, and a single repeat offence can later result in a four-figure sum. You should therefore respond within the deadline, but not reactively, and do not sign any pre-formulated declaration without having it reviewed by a solicitor. It is often worded more broadly than the specific circumstances require.

Legal notice, legal texts and the ODR link that must be removed

An incomplete legal notice is a classic offence and has ranked among the top reasons in every warning letter statistic for years. Since May 2024, the legal basis has been Section 5 of the Digital Services Act (DDG), which has replaced the old Telemedia Act (TMG) in this regard. Little has changed in terms of content, but the section references in old template texts are no longer correct. Mandatory details include, amongst other things, the full name or company name with legal form, the authorised representatives, a serviceable address (no PO box), an email address and, where applicable, the commercial register and registration number, as well as the VAT registration number.

However, the most common avoidable mistake in this area at present is not a missing entry, but a superfluous one: the link to the EU platform for online dispute resolution. This ODR platform was deactivated on 20 July 2025, and the underlying EU Regulation 524/2013 has been repealed. The long-standing obligation to include a clickable link to ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr in the legal notice or the terms and conditions has therefore been abolished without replacement. Anyone who continues to provide this link is directing their customers to a dead link. This may be classified as misleading and could therefore itself constitute grounds for a cease-and-desist letter. Check your legal notice, terms and conditions and cancellation policy accordingly and remove any reference to ODR.

The obligation under the Consumer Dispute Resolution Act remains in force: you must still state whether you are willing or obliged to take part in a dispute resolution procedure before a consumer arbitration board. This information remains; the ODR link is no longer required.

Withdrawal: from the information notice to the withdrawal button from June 2026

When it comes to the right of withdrawal, warnings usually arise from outdated or incorrectly incorporated texts. The cancellation policy must be up to date, the model cancellation form must actually be available, and the details regarding the time limit and its start date must correspond to the type of contract. A template text that has not been updated for three years is, in case of doubt, out of date in several respects.

However, the most important deadline is yet to come. On 19 June 2026, the new Section 356a of the German Civil Code (BGB) will come into force, obliging all businesses that enable consumers to enter into distance contracts via an online user interface to provide a cancellation button. ‘Online user interface’ refers to both a website and an app. Telephone, fax and order forms are not covered, nor are contracts for which there is no right of withdrawal under Section 312g of the German Civil Code (BGB).

The function is prescribed as a two-step process. A clearly legible button labelled “Withdraw from the contract” or an equivalent phrase must be visible on the page. After clicking, the consumer is taken to a confirmation page where they enter the contract details and submit the declaration via a second button (“Confirm withdrawal” or equivalent). The trader must then confirm receipt.

The penalty for non-compliance is significant. If the function – and therefore the relevant information – is missing, the withdrawal period is extended to twelve months and 14 days. Specifically: if a customer buys a garden barbecue in March and the button is missing, they can theoretically withdraw from the purchase well into the following year. By then, the season will be over and the goods will have been used. Added to this is the risk of a warning letter for breaching the duty to provide information. You should therefore plan the technical implementation well in advance, as the button is not merely a text block, but a separate process with an input form and confirmation. To ensure seamless integration into Shopware-based online shops, it is advisable not to wait until just before June 2026 to implement this.

Price information: Base price and the 30-day best price

Price labelling is a recurring issue because it involves two different obligations, both of which are grounds for a warning letter on their own.

The first is the requirement to state the base price in accordance with Section 4 of the Price Indication Regulation (PAngV). Anyone offering goods by weight, volume, length or area must state the price per unit of quantity alongside the total price, for example “€4.99 (€9.98/kg)”. If the unit price is missing or has been calculated incorrectly, this is a common and easily verifiable ground for a warning.

The second obligation concerns discounts and crossed-out prices and has been tightened since 2024. Under Section 11 of the PAngV, the lowest total price over the last 30 days must be stated for every advertised price reduction. In the Aldi Süd case (judgement of 26 September 2024, C-330/23), the European Court of Justice clarified that it is not sufficient simply to state this 30-day lowest price somewhere. An advertised reduction, whether expressed as a percentage or as a crossed-out price, must refer specifically to this lowest price over the last 30 days . The Federal Court of Justice has clarified the requirements for German practice in its judgement of 9 October 2025 (I ZR 183/24): the reference price must be clearly identifiable and legible.

An example illustrates the difference clearly. You sell an item for 80 euros, raise the price to 100 euros at the start of the month and, two weeks later, launch a promotion at 89 euros with the claim ‘11% off’. However, the reference point is the lowest price over the last 30 days, i.e. 80 euros. Measured against this, the promotional price is not a discount, but an increase. It is precisely such scenarios that lead to warnings. In practical terms, this means that ‘strikethrough price’ campaigns require a clear price history. If your shop system does not automatically analyse the last 30 days, any manually set discount promotion poses a risk – and this also applies to a promotion that runs for just a few hours.

Warranty and “standard features”

Anyone advertising a warranty is subject to a duty to provide information and often underestimates this obligation. Even the statement “5-year manufacturer’s guarantee” on the product page constitutes advertising with a guarantee and, under Section 479 of the German Civil Code (BGB), requires the full terms and conditions of the guarantee to be provided. These include:

• a reference to the statutory rights in respect of defects and the fact that these are free of charge and are not restricted by the guarantee;
• the name and address of the guarantor;
• the procedure for making a claim;
• the goods covered;
• the warranty terms, in particular the duration and geographical scope.

If this information is missing, the warranty advertising may be subject to a cease-and-desist notice. A ‘satisfaction guarantee’ also counts legally as a guarantee in this sense; the term is therefore not a free pass.

A related error is advertising features that are a matter of course. Characteristics that are already required by law must not be highlighted as a special advantage. A “14-day right of return” is the statutory rule in distance selling, not a service provided by the trader. “CE-marked” is mandatory for many products; it is not a selling point. Such statements are considered misleading because they suggest an advantage that does not actually exist.

Obligations beyond the product page: LUCID, cookies and accessibility

Some of the reasons for receiving a warning letter do not lie in the product description, but in the shop’s operational infrastructure. Three of these are regularly overlooked.

The Packaging Act and LUCID. Anyone who dispatches packaged goods to end customers in Germany must register with the LUCID packaging register before the first dispatch and participate in a dual system, regardless of the quantity. Failure to register is one of the most common violations leading to warnings, and for one simple reason: any competitor can check the public LUCID register in a matter of seconds to see if you are listed, without even opening your shop. If there is no entry, a warning is quickly issued. Fines can reach up to 200,000 euros depending on the offence: failure to register is punishable by a fine of up to 100,000 euros, whilst failure to participate in a dual system is punishable by a fine of up to 200,000 euros.

Cookies and tracking. Cookies and analytics or marketing tools that are not strictly necessary may only be set after active consent has been given (Section 25 TDDDG). A banner stating ‘Accept all’, but without an equally prominent ‘Reject’ button on the same level, does not comply with the law. In addition, there is an obligation to provide a complete, up-to-date privacy policy. We have described in detail what a proper consent setup looks like under Cookie banners and consent under the TDDDG.

Accessibility (BFSG). From 28 June 2025, online shops must be accessible. The Accessibility Enhancement Act exempts only micro-enterprises that offer services (fewer than ten employees and an annual turnover of no more than two million euros). Those who sell products do not fall under this exemption. Enforcement is primarily carried out by the authorities through market surveillance, with fines of up to 100,000 euros. In addition, since the Act came into force, competitors have also been issuing warning letters, treating accessibility shortcomings as breaches of competition law. Whether every breach of the BFSG is actionable under competition law has not yet been conclusively clarified in legal terms. The dispute centres on whether the BFSG requirements constitute rules of market conduct within the meaning of Section 3a of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG), as only then could a breach be subject to a warning under competition law. Regardless of this, there is a genuine need for action. Details of what needs to be implemented can be found in our BFSG checklist for Shopware shops.

Quick overview: common mistakes at a glance

The following overview summarises the points covered. It is no substitute for an individual review, but serves as a starting point for conducting your own assessment.

None of these points constitute a legal dispute. They are maintenance tasks. That is precisely what makes them manageable, and that is exactly why they are overlooked: a legal text that was once correctly incorporated nevertheless becomes outdated because laws change, sections are moved and obligations such as the OS platform are removed, whilst others, such as the cancellation button, are added. A regular review schedule, say every six months, helps to avoid a warning letter regarding your online shop before the risk turns into an actual letter. If you are developing the shop yourself or having it developed, compliance should not be an afterthought at the end, but rather an integral part of shop development and maintenance. The cancellation button, due to be introduced in June 2026, makes it clear: a legal requirement here is also a development task.