If you don’t cancel in time and you’re trapped in a subscription for a long time: a law has actually put a stop to these methods for a year and a half. Since then, consumers should be able to cancel every month after the minimum term.
But consumer advocates have now found what they believe to be invalid contractual conditions in a random sample of over 100 companies from different banks. “That’s frightening. Behind it there are always a number of consumers who are being held against these general terms and conditions,” says the legal expert at the Thuringia Consumer Center, Dirk Weinsheimer. The economic consequences for those affected are significant.
Consumer advocates are warning 85 companies
In a joint campaign between June and September, the consumer advice centers and the Bavarian Consumer Service established the contractual conditions for a total of 828 providers. The result: 85 companies have since been warned. Violations were found in 31 others, but the legal review has not yet been completed or legal steps are being considered.
Consumer advocates report that 50 companies have now given in. They therefore either issued a cease and desist declaration or changed their general terms and conditions (GTC). Lawsuits have already been filed in two cases and further lawsuits have been announced. In some cases, companies and consumer advocates have different legal views. The purpose of the campaign is also to clarify legal ambiguities.
Simply cancel contracts with invalid terms and conditions
Specifically, it was about a law that came into force in March 2022. Accordingly, subscription contracts concluded after this date can be canceled with one month’s notice after the minimum term has expired. The rule has been in effect for cell phone, landline or internet contracts since the end of 2021. Even if you agreed to different terms and conditions when concluding the contract, they are not valid, explains Weinsheimer. So if you didn’t cancel in time and according to the terms and conditions you were actually stuck in a contract for another 12 months, you could still cancel it with one month’s notice.
As part of this so-called law for fair contracts, it was also made more difficult to conclude energy contracts by telephone and cancellation buttons were introduced on the Internet. The consumer advocates did not check these two points this time. However, an analysis in July revealed that there were no cancellation buttons set up on a number of homepages.
Smaller companies are more likely to be affected
Weinsheimer does not accuse the companies of bad will – rather it is ignorance. “Especially smaller companies without their own legal department are lagging behind and don’t keep an eye on legal developments.” As an example of this, he cited fitness studios, where violations of notice periods were found in 10 of the 37 companies examined – dance studios were also included here. Subscription models for clothing also tend to be small, with 12 of the 34 companies examined being affected.
Dozens of energy suppliers in need of improvement
What was striking was the comparatively high number of electricity and gas suppliers examined in the sample (438). This also reflects the relevance, says Weinsheimer: “Every household has at least one energy contract.” The result of the consumer advocates: They see a need for improvement in 50 of them. In the case of smaller municipal utilities, for example, the change in the law could have slipped through.
“We assume that our member companies have implemented the legal regulations correctly,” says the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry. A fair contractual relationship and trusting relationships with customers are very important to you.
The consumer advocates also found what they were looking for in 10 out of 52 companies among newspaper and magazine publishers. “Terms and conditions are not so much in the foreground in the end customer business. The offers in the subscription shops are crucial,” says the general counsel of the Media Association of the Free Press, Dirk Platte. It is now industry standard that subscription contracts with consumers are not automatically extended by one year after the minimum term.
The Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers BDZV does not know of any member companies that have not adapted their offerings to the law. “As far as we know, there is currently a trend among newspapers for publishing companies to offer unlimited subscriptions that can be canceled at any time, because these offers are in particularly high demand among our audience.”
The federal government sees a need for further regulation
The federal government generally assesses the law positively. According to the Ministry of Consumer Protection, it has brought important improvements for consumers. However, there is a need for further regulation. In the coalition agreement, the government decided, among other things, that all consumer contracts concluded over the telephone should generally be confirmed in writing. The possible minimum term of subscription contracts should also be limited from two to one year and protection against dubious door-to-door sales should be introduced. However, the projects are still waiting to be implemented.
