Check24 vs Huk-Coburg: The Courtroom Battle over Insurance Comparison Grading
Online Insurance Rate Comparison Verdict: European Court of Justice Endorses Check24's Approach - Online Insurance Rate Comparison Ruling: ECJ Sides with Check24
When the Munich I Regional Court got a lawsuit between insurance group Huk-Coburg and Check24, things heated up. Check24 is an online platform that compares insurance offers and assigns grades based on various factors. But Huk-Coburg views this as unacceptable, labeling it as impermissible comparative advertising.
The regional court, naturally, had doubts about this grading system. Could it be considered comparative advertising under EU law, even in a grading or point system format? To settle this, they turned to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for guidance.
Instead of straightforwardly answering the question, the ECJ took a step back. They wanted to first establish if an online comparison service could be deemed as comparative advertising at all. This hinged on whether the platform provider was a competitor of the insurance company in question.
As it stands, the Munich court must now decide if there's a competitive relationship between Check24 and Huk-Coburg. This implies considering whether their respective services are interchangeable, essentially meaning they're active on the same market.
According to the ECJ, Check24 isn't an insurance company but operates as a portal that compares insurance rates and facilitates agreements with insurance providers. This suggests they might not be direct competitors on the service market, although the final determination falls to the Munich court.
While the ECJ's assessment doesn't settle the legal dispute, it provides a key piece of insight for the Munich court to consider during deliberations. Stay tuned for the verdict!
- ECJ
- Check24
- Insurance Comparison
- Lawsuit
- Competitive Relationship
- Munich I Regional Court
- EU Law
[1] Overall, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is currently handling a case involving Check24's insurance comparison platform. The core issue is whether the use of a grading system for insurance products qualifies as permissible comparative advertising under EU law. The case stems from Huk-Coburg's challenge against Check24's grading system, claiming it constitutes unfair comparative advertising.
[2] According to the EU law, comparative advertising is permissible under specific conditions. These conditions include it being truthful, not misleading, and comparing like-for-like. The grading system employed by Check24 uses several scoring parameters that are category-specific and provide additional information through pop-up windows, potentially demonstrating a degree of transparency. However, the definitive verdict on the permissibility of the grading system awaits further judicial analysis.
- The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is currently deciding if Check24's insurance comparison grading system qualifies as permissible comparative advertising under EU law, following a lawsuit from Huk-Coburg.
- Under EU law, comparative advertising is permitted under specific conditions, such as being truthful, non-misleading, and with products being compared on a like-for-like basis.
- Check24's grading system uses category-specific scoring parameters and offers additional information through pop-up windows, potentially displaying a degree of transparency.
- The final verdict on the permissibility of the grading system will depend on the Munich I Regional Court's determination of whether Check24 and Huk-Coburg have a competitive relationship, implying their services are interchangeable and they are active on the same market.
