Countdown offer extended: when is that misleading?

The case

On its website, a mobile network operator advertised a 'Valentine's Day tariff': 50 GB of data for 9.99 euros a month with a minimum term of 24 months — limited until an exact point in time, which was visibly counted down by a countdown in the header. As soon as the deadline had expired, the operator advertised the same data volume at the same price again, this time limited until four days later — again with a countdown. When this deadline also passed, a third round followed under the name 'Power Surf tariff', again with identical core conditions. A consumer association sent the operator a formal warning letter (Abmahnung) and sued for injunctive relief.

The decision of the LG Hanau

The LG (Regional Court) Hanau upheld the action (judgment of 5.11.2025 – 6 O 27/25, not final, appeal pending before the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main under 6 U 313/25). Advertising a time-limited special offer is misleading within the meaning of § 5(1), (2) no. 1 UWG (German Act against Unfair Competition) if the promotion is continued beyond the announced period — the consumer addressed assumes that he or she only has a limited time window for the decision until the deadline expires, and is put under additional pressure by the countdown. Precisely this impression is disappointed if the offer then continues unchanged.

Decisive: the economic substance

What was decisive was not the name of the tariff, but its economic substance from the consumer's point of view. The court clarified: whether the promotional tariff was based on different old tariffs and ran under different names is irrelevant, as long as the key features relevant to the purchasing decision — data volume, price, minimum term, speed — remain identical. For the new customer, it is of no significance which historical basic package underlay the special offer; the only decisive factor is whether he or she gets the same product on the same terms. Anyone wishing to justify such an extension must also show that it was based on unforeseeable circumstances that arose subsequently — according to established case law, the mere economic success of the promotion is not sufficient for this.

Consequences for companies

For companies that advertise with time-limited special offers and countdown elements, the judgment is a clear warning: a deadline that is in any event intended to be extended if in doubt may not be advertised in this way — irrespective of whether the offer is given a new name in the meantime. Anyone who actually has to extend a promotion should do so only in the event of a genuine change in circumstances that was not foreseeable in advance and should also be able to document it. For consumers, the case shows that a repeatedly 'extended' special offer is not a trivial offence, but conduct that can be challenged under competition law and against which consumer associations can take successful action.