{"id":71551,"date":"2026-10-29T22:40:12","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T20:40:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=71551"},"modified":"2026-10-29T22:40:12","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T20:40:12","slug":"strike-price-valid-again-cologne","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/competition-law-antitrust-law\/strike-price-valid-again-cologne\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPrice valid again from \u2026\u201d: Cologne court bans strike-through price that was never the previous price"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>A struck-through price, the sale price in red next to it and, in the asterisk note, the words \u201cPrice valid again from 28.01.2026\u201d: on 2 October 2026 the Higher Regional Court of Cologne banned this advertising because a lower price had applied immediately before the promotion. Stating the correct 30-day price did not help the retailer. What online retailers and manufacturers should take from the ruling ahead of Black Friday and Cyber Monday.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Price promotions live on comparison. Your own price only looks attractive when a higher price stands next to it, ideally struck through. In its judgment of 2 October 2026 (<a href=\"https:\/\/nrwe.justiz.nrw.de\/olgs\/koeln\/j2026\/6_U_24_26_Urteil_20261002.html\">6 U 24\/26<\/a>), the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Oberlandesgericht K\u00f6ln, OLG K\u00f6ln) prohibited a variant of this comparison that is common in online shops: the strike-through price was not the price the retailer had charged before, but the price it intended to charge after the promotion.<\/p>\n<p>The product was a pocket-spring mattress, advertised on the retailer\u2019s product overview page, its sale page and the product detail page. Immediately before the promotion, the mattress cost EUR 199. During the promotion, the retailer contrasted the sale price, highlighted in red, with a higher, struck-through price. An asterisk note stated: \u201cPrice valid again from 28.01.2026\u201d. The retailer also stated the lowest price of the last 30 days.<\/p>\n<p>The Regional Court of Cologne (Landgericht K\u00f6ln) had prohibited the advertising in summary proceedings (judgment of 4 March 2026, 84 O 3\/26). The OLG K\u00f6ln dismissed the appeal. As the case concerns a preliminary injunction, the judgment became final upon delivery under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/ZPO\/542.html\">Section 542(2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO)<\/a>. The court set the value of the appeal at EUR 48,000.<\/p>\n<p>The key points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Consumers understand a strike-through price as the price the retailer charged immediately before.<\/li>\n<li>The note \u201cvalid again\u201d reinforces this impression instead of correcting it.<\/li>\n<li>Additionally stating the 30-day price does not cure the misleading impression.<\/li>\n<li>Besides <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/UWG\/5.html\">Section 5 of the German Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG)<\/a>, the presentation infringes the requirement of price clarity under the German Price Indication Ordinance.<\/li>\n<li>In summary proceedings, the applicant may rely on additional legal grounds without losing urgency.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>What exactly did the OLG K\u00f6ln decide?<\/h2>\n<p>The OLG K\u00f6ln held that a retailer may not advertise with a strike-through price if the price charged immediately before the promotion was lower than the strike-through price. The second headnote of the judgment puts it more generally: it concerns the conditions under which a price reduced against the price to be charged in future may be advertised. In the specific case, the court found that these conditions were not met.<\/p>\n<p>In the court\u2019s view, the advertising was misleading under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/UWG\/5.html\">Section 5(1) and (2) no. 2 UWG<\/a> because it deceived consumers about the price and the price advantage. The court also found an infringement of <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/PAngV\/11.html\">Section 11(1) of the Price Indication Ordinance (Preisangabenverordnung, PAngV)<\/a> in conjunction with <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/PAngV\/1.html\">Section 1(3), second sentence, PAngV<\/a>, because the overall price presentation was unclear.<\/p>\n<h2>Why do customers read a strike-through price as the previous price?<\/h2>\n<p>Because that is the settled case law of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH): unless explained otherwise, a struck-through price is the price the retailer itself charged before. The OLG K\u00f6ln expressly relies on the decision \u201cDurchgestrichener Preis II\u201d (BGH, judgment of 5 November 2015, <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=I%20ZR%20182\/14\">I ZR 182\/14<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>For consumers, the strike-through price is proof of the saving. Anyone who sees EUR 299 struck through and EUR 179 in red assumes they would have paid EUR 299 yesterday. If the price yesterday was EUR 199, the alleged saving of EUR 120 is really one of EUR 20. This is exactly the discrepancy the court objected to. The figures in this paragraph are an example; the published text of the judgment does not state the strike-through price or the sale price.<\/p>\n<p>The retailer argued that the higher price had in fact been charged in the past. That was not enough for the OLG K\u00f6ln. Consumers relate the strike-through price to the period immediately before the promotion, not to some earlier point in time. If the retailer meant something else, it was its responsibility to make that clear and unambiguous.<\/p>\n<h2>Why did the word \u201cagain\u201d make things worse?<\/h2>\n<p>Because \u201cvalid again\u201d ordinarily means that the price applied until just now and will return after the promotion. The asterisk note was meant to explain that the strike-through price was the future price. In fact, it confirmed to the customer that this price had also been the previous one. As the court put it, the note does not counteract the misconception but reinforces it.<\/p>\n<p>According to the judgment, the red highlighting of the sale price and the stated validity period reinforced this impression further. Both convey a short-term bargain compared with the regular price. That was clearly sufficient for commercial relevance. Under the OLG K\u00f6ln\u2019s reasoning, deception about the price is always capable of influencing the purchasing decision.<\/p>\n<p>This is the real practical lesson. An asterisk note can only correct an eye-catching statement if it contradicts it in substance and is sufficiently clear. A note that confirms the misconception is worse than none at all.<\/p>\n<h2>Does stating the 30-day price save the advertising?<\/h2>\n<p>No. The retailer had stated the lowest price of the last 30 days, as required by <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/PAngV\/11.html\">Section 11(1) PAngV<\/a> when a price reduction is announced. The OLG K\u00f6ln considered this irrelevant. The mandatory information did not remove the misleading overall impression created by the struck-through price and the note \u201cvalid again\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>The 30-day rule implements Art. 6a of the Price Indication Directive (Directive 98\/6\/EC). On 26 September 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that an announced price reduction must be based on this 30-day price (<a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=C-330\/23\">C-330\/23<\/a>, Aldi S\u00fcd). On 9 October 2025, the BGH added that the reference price must be stated unambiguously, clearly recognisably and legibly (<a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/dienste\/vernetzung\/rechtsprechung?Text=I%20ZR%20183\/24\">I ZR 183\/24<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>The Cologne judgment shows the flip side: getting the mandatory information right does not get you off the hook. Any other price information shown alongside must itself be correct and must not confuse the picture. The court therefore also found a breach of the requirement of price clarity under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/PAngV\/1.html\">Section 1(3), second sentence, PAngV<\/a>. Several prices, the most prominent of which is a misleading comparison price, are not clear.<\/p>\n<h2>Can you advertise with the future price at all?<\/h2>\n<p>In principle yes, but only if customers recognise at first glance that it is a future price and if that price is actually charged afterwards. The OLG K\u00f6ln did not list the conditions exhaustively but found them not met in the specific case. The judgment shows where the advertising failed: in the strike-through, which stands for the previous price, and in an explanation that confirmed the misunderstanding.<\/p>\n<p>In our view, advertising with the future price is more defensible if it does without a strike-through and puts the time reference in the eye-catcher, for example: \u201cPromotional price until 27.01.2026: EUR 179. From 28.01.2026: EUR 299.\u201d If a lower price applied in the shop immediately before, that price should also be stated legibly. Words such as \u201cagain\u201d, \u201cback\u201d or \u201cregular\u201d are off limits if the higher price did not apply before.<\/p>\n<p>Seriousness also matters. Anyone who does not charge the announced price after the promotion, or does so for only a few days, is advertising with an inflated \u201cmoon price\u201d. That can be challenged under Section 5 UWG regardless of the presentation. Retailers should therefore document from when and for how long the higher price actually applied.<\/p>\n<h2>What does the judgment mean for summary proceedings?<\/h2>\n<p>The judgment strengthens the position of applicants in summary proceedings. According to the first headnote, it is harmless if the applicant, even outside the urgency period, bases its application on additional legal grounds within the same subject matter of the dispute. Urgency is presumed under <a href=\"https:\/\/dejure.org\/gesetze\/UWG\/12.html\">Section 12(1) UWG<\/a>; the Cologne court generally considers a period of one month to be decisive.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the applicant had filed its application on 20 January 2026 and only relied on the infringement of the Price Indication Ordinance in a brief dated 2 February 2026. The court saw no problem: the addition was still within the one-month period, and the application and the facts remained identical. According to the headnote, it would also have been harmless later. An annex that had been attached by mistake did not harm the application either, because the thrust of the attack was clear from the application itself.<\/p>\n<p>For recipients of warning letters, this means that hoping an argument raised later is time-barred will rarely help in the Cologne district. Whoever attacks a specific advertisement may supplement the legal reasoning in the proceedings, as long as they stick to the specific form of infringement.<\/p>\n<h2>What should retailers and manufacturers do now?<\/h2>\n<p>Ahead of Black Friday on 27 November 2026 and Cyber Monday on 30 November 2026, retailers should review their price presentation in their shop, on marketplaces and in newsletters. The Cologne decision affects every promotion in which the comparison price is not the immediately preceding price. This applies to a retailer\u2019s own online shop as well as to marketplace offers and to foreign manufacturers selling to German consumers via their own shops or platforms.<\/p>\n<p>Specifically, we recommend:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Strike-through only for the genuine previous price:<\/strong> Only the price charged immediately before the promotion may be struck through, and not just for one day.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Calculate percentages on the 30-day price:<\/strong> Every highlighted discount must relate to the lowest price of the last 30 days.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Future prices without strike-through:<\/strong> If you want to advertise the price after the promotion, state it with a date and without a strike-through, and if in doubt next to the previous price.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Proofread asterisk notes:<\/strong> A note must correct the eye-catching statement. Wording such as \u201cvalid again\u201d or \u201cinstead of regular\u201d is only permissible if true.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Check automation:<\/strong> Shop templates and repricing tools often carry stored strike-through prices into promotions unchecked. Liability lies with the retailer.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Document prices:<\/strong> A complete price history is the most important evidence in a dispute.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div style=\"background: #EFF3F9; border-left: 5px solid #263E96; padding: 24px 28px; margin: 32px 0;\">\n<p style=\"margin: 0 0 10px;\"><strong>From LHR\u2019s practice<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin: 0;\">Proceedings before the Regional Court of D\u00fcsseldorf show how quickly a discount presentation becomes permanent: a supplier of solar products was prohibited by preliminary injunction from advertising on Amazon with a \u201climited-time offer\u201d that was in fact a permanent price with a discount label. You can find the details in our article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/wettbewerbsrecht-kartellrecht\/befristetes-angebot-amazon-irrefuehrend-lg-duesseldorf\/\">\u201eBefristetes Angebot\u201c auf Amazon im Wochentakt<\/a> (in German).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"background: #EFF3F9; padding: 36px 40px 28px; margin: 0 0 48px;\">\n<h2 style=\"margin: 0 0 14px;\">Frequently asked questions about strike-through prices with a \u201cvalid again\u201d note<\/h2>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">May I strike through a price that I only intend to charge after the promotion?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">As a rule, no. A struck-through price is understood as the price you charged immediately before. If the price before the promotion was lower, the advertising is misleading according to the OLG K\u00f6ln. A future price should be stated with a date and without a strike-through.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">Does an asterisk note such as \u201cPrice valid again from \u2026\u201d help?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">No, if the price did not apply before. The OLG K\u00f6ln held that the very word \u201cagain\u201d reinforces the false impression that the higher price had been charged until the promotion. An asterisk note must correct the eye-catching statement, not confirm it.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">Is it enough to state the lowest price of the last 30 days?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">No. The information under Section 11 PAngV is mandatory, but it does not remove misleading effects of other price information. In the Cologne case, the 30-day price was stated and the advertising was prohibited nonetheless.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details style=\"border-bottom: 1px solid #C9D6E6;\">\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">Is it sufficient that the higher price was charged at some point in the past?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">No. Consumers relate the strike-through price to the period immediately before the promotion. A price that applied months earlier does not justify the comparison if a lower price was charged in the meantime.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<details>\n<summary style=\"display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 16px; padding: 20px 0; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;\">What are the consequences of an infringement?<span class=\"lhr-faq-toggle\" style=\"flex: 0 0 28px; width: 28px; height: 28px; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; border: 1px solid #263E96; color: #263e96; font-size: 19px; line-height: 1;\">+<\/span><\/summary>\n<div style=\"padding: 0 0 22px;\">Competitors and associations can send a warning letter and demand a cease-and-desist declaration with a contractual penalty. If it is not given, a preliminary injunction often follows. In the Cologne case, the OLG set the value of the appeal at EUR 48,000; court and lawyers\u2019 fees are based on this value.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"background: #0A2C52; padding: 32px 36px; margin: 0 0 48px;\">\n<p style=\"color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25em; margin: 0 0 12px;\">Are you planning promotions for Black Friday or Cyber Monday?<\/p>\n<p style=\"color: #d7e3f4; margin: 0 0 24px;\">We review your strike-through prices, asterisk notes and shop templates before the promotion starts, or assess a warning letter you have received about price advertising. You will usually receive an initial assessment within 24 hours.<\/p>\n<p><a style=\"display: inline-block; background: #FFFFFF; color: #0a2c52; font-weight: bold; padding: 14px 28px; text-decoration: none;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/contact-2\/\">Contact us now<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2>Further information<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/wettbewerbsrecht-kartellrecht\/durchgestrichene-uvp-30-tage-preis\/\">Durchgestrichene UVP und 30-Tage-Preis: Was OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, OLG Stuttgart und OLG K\u00f6ln H\u00e4ndlern vor dem Black Friday mitgeben<\/a> (in German)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/wettbewerbsrecht-kartellrecht\/befristetes-angebot-amazon-irrefuehrend-lg-duesseldorf\/\">LHR-Praxisfall: \u201eBefristetes Angebot\u201c auf Amazon im Wochentakt<\/a> (in German)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/wettbewerbsrecht-kartellrecht\/ordnungsgeld-amazon-uvp-lg-heilbronn\/\">LHR-Praxisfall: Ordnungsgeld trotz Amazon-Automatik<\/a> (in German)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/magazin\/wettbewerbsrecht-kartellrecht\/streichpreise-irrefuehrende-preiswerbung-im-online-shop\/\">Streichpreise: Irref\u00fchrende Preiswerbung im Online-Shop<\/a> (in German)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/fields-of-activity\/\">Our fields of activity<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/erfolge\/\">Our successes<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Higher Regional Court of Cologne (2 October 2026, 6 U 24\/26) banned a strike-through price with the note \u201cPrice valid again from\u201d, because a lower price applied before. The 30-day price did not help. What retailers should consider before Black Friday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_focuskw":"strike-through price Germany","_yoast_wpseo_title":"Strike-through price \u201cvalid again\u201d: OLG Cologne ruling %%sep%% %%sitename%%","_yoast_wpseo_metadesc":"Cologne court bans a strike-through price marked \u201cvalid again\u201d: a lower price applied before and the 30-day price did not help. Tips for Black Friday.","show_overview":"1","footnotes":""},"categories":[19441,19455],"tags":[20289,20316,20511,21405,21428,21429,21430,21431,21432],"topic_category":[19442,19466],"class_list":["post-71551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-negotiation-strategy-process-tactics","category-competition-law-antitrust-law","tag-misleading-advertising","tag-interim-injunction","tag-crossed-out-price","tag-price-indication","tag-strike-through-price","tag-30-day-price-en","tag-price-indication-ordinance","tag-olg-cologne-6-u-24-26","tag-black-friday-en","topic_category-competition-law-antitrust-law","topic_category-protection-against-warning-letters"],"acf":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71551"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71905,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71551\/revisions\/71905"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71551"},{"taxonomy":"topic_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic_category?post=71551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}