- In the advertising flyer, the essential tariff conditions were only contained in a footnote in tiny font.
- Readability was made even more difficult by the text and color design.
- LG Düsseldorf condemns Vodafone to cease and desist from unfair advertising.
The Düsseldorf regional court has prohibited Vodafone GmbH from hiding essential tariff conditions in a barely legible footnote in an advertising flyer for a mobile phone tariff. The court thus upheld a lawsuit brought by the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv), which had accused the company of unfair advertising by concealing essential information.
Mobile tariff conditions in Vodafone flyer difficult to read
Vodafone had advertised a mobile phone tariff in a multi-page advertising flyer. Several information about the monthly price and the scope of services included a reference to footnote 1, which was printed together with other footnotes on one page of the flyer. The footnote contained, among other things, important information about the minimum term of the contract, the one-time connection price and details about the scope of services.
Footnote texts barely readable
However, the tiny 3-point font was barely legible. Readability was made difficult by the fact that the footnotes ran the full length of the page and consisted of a single, unstructured paragraph of 1,530 words. In addition, the text, which was in a gray tone, stood out only slightly from the slightly shiny background.
Important information must be easily accessible
The regional court followed the view of the vzbv that this design deprived consumers of essential information about the tariff and price and was therefore misleading. Since it was a product advertisement stating the price, Vodafone was legally obliged to include the essential tariff conditions in an easily accessible form in the advertising flyer
The low-contrast printing made the readability of the text and thus the accessibility of the information it conveys extremely difficult. The content of the footnote cannot be reasonably deduced.
Key data on the verdict
Date of judgment announcement: August 26, 2022
File number: Ref. 38 O 41/22
Court: Düsseldorf Regional Court

Source:
Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv)
Do not miss! A Mimikama Fact Check: Is a Hammer Confirming the Death of a Pope?
If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:
📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.
Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!
* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )

