Doctors may inform patients factually about their services. Professional codes and the HWG set the limits; violations can be pursued by competitors and associations under § 3a UWG.
Legal framework
- HWG: § 3 (misleading claims), § 7 (gifts), § 9 (telemedicine), § 10 (prescription drugs), § 11 (e.g. before-and-after images), § 12 (certain diseases)
- Professional codes: § 27 MBO-Ä – factual information allowed, professionally inappropriate advertising prohibited
Case law
- BGH, 9 Dec 2021, I ZR 146/20 – general advertising for remote treatment via app breaches § 9 HWG where personal contact is required
- BGH, 29 July 2021, I ZR 114/20 – a dentist without specialist title may not present as a “practice for orthodontics”
- CJEU, 4 May 2017, C-339/15 – a general advertising ban for dentists violates the freedom to provide services
- BGH, 5 Nov 2020, I ZR 204/19 – efficacy claims must reflect established scientific knowledge
Case examples
“Specialist” without title
A dental practice calls itself “implant specialists”. The term may be confused with an official specialist title and must be checked carefully.
Online consultation for everything
A telemedicine app advertises “diagnosis for every complaint from your sofa”. That breaches § 9 HWG.
