A new law is intended to protect consumers from the automatic extension of contracts and long notice periods. But consumer advice centers have found numerous violations of the rules.
Once the subscription is not canceled in time, a customer is trapped in a subscription for a long time – consumers have actually been protected from these methods by law for a year and a half and can cancel every month after the minimum term. However, in a sample of over 100 companies from different sectors, consumer advocates found what they considered to be invalid contractual conditions.
“That’s frightening. Behind it there are always a number of consumers who are being held against by these general terms and conditions,” said the legal expert at the Thuringia Consumer Center, Dirk Weinsheimer. The economic consequences for those affected are significant.
Consumer advocates 85 companies warn against this
The consumer advice centers and the Bavarian Consumer Service analyzed the contractual conditions of a total of 828 providers in a joint campaign between June and September. The result: 85 companies have since been warned. Violations were found in 31 others. However, the legal review has not yet been completed or legal steps are being examined, it said.
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, violations of a law that came into force in March 2022 were investigated. 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 a consumer 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 over the telephone, and cancellation buttons were also introduced on the Internet. However, 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.
Especially small companies and Energy supplier stand out
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.
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.
The federal government currently views the law as fundamentally positive. 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.