Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:338
Date: 2025-05-08
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Consumer protection;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary C-697/23 – 1 
Case C-697/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling under Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
17 November 2023 
Referring court: 
Landgericht München I (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 November 2023 
Applicant: 
HUK-COBURG Haftplicht-Unterstützungs-Kasse kraftfahrender 
Beamter Deutschlands a.G. in Coburg 
Defendants: 
Check24 Vergleichsportal GmbH 
CHECK24 Vergleichsportal für Kfz-Versicherungen 
CHECK24 Vergleichsportal für Sachversicherungen GmbH 
CHECK24 Vergleichsportal für Krankenversicherungen GmbH 
CHECK24 Vergleichsportal für Vorsorgeversicherungen GmbH 
CHECK24 Vergleichsportal für Versicherungsprodukte GmbH 
  
Subject matter of the case in the main proceedings 
Approximation of laws – Directive 2006/114/EC – Misleading advertising – 
Article 4 – Conditions of permitted comparative advertising – Comparison 
website for insurance schemes – Performance of comparison by means of a 
grading or points system 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-697/23 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Is Article 4(c) of Directive 2006/114/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the 
conditions of permitted comparative advertising under that provision may also be 
satisfied where the comparison is performed by means of a grading or points 
system? 
Provision of EU law relied on 
Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, 
Article 4(c) 
Provision of national law relied on 
Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (Law on unfair competition, ‘the 
UWG’), Paragraph 6(2)(2) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure 
1 The parties to the main proceedings disagree, in essence, as to whether and, if so, 
under what conditions a comparison of insurance schemes by means of 
‘Tarifnoten’ (‘policy grades’) on a comparison website is permitted. 
2 The applicant is the parent company of a large German insurance group whose 
subsidiaries also offer insurance schemes in different types of insurance. 
3 The defendants form part of a group of companies which operates a large 
comparison website on the internet, that is to say, a website which offers users 
(free of charge) a means of comparing various products, including insurance 
schemes, on the basis of a number of criteria, including but not limited to price, 
and subsequently, as the case may be, concluding contracts with the providers of 
those products. 
4 The first defendant is the holder of the (umbrella) domain name. The content of 
the pages is the responsibility of the various operating companies of the group, 
which are not connected to one another by control agreements and surrender-of-
profits agreements. The first defendant makes the website available to the various 
operating companies on that basis. The second defendant is responsible for motor 
vehicle insurance, the third defendant for contents, home, private third-party and 
legal expenses insurance, the fourth defendant for private health insurance and 
HUK-COBURG HAFTPLICHT-UNTERSTÜTZUNGS-KASSE 
 
3 
supplementary health insurance, the fifth defendant for term life insurance, 
accident insurance, Riester pensions, basic pensions, flexible private pensions and 
insurance against incapacity for work, and the sixth defendant for insurance 
against death grants. 
5 The defendants design the presentation of policy comparisons for the various 
types of insurance according, in principle, to the same model: after entering 
certain key data, some mandatory and some optional, on the policy holder and the 
desired product (‘filter settings’), the website user receives a results page relating 
to the information he has given (generated by the relevant defendant). 
6 The results page contains a list of insurance policies from various providers. What 
is considered the essential information on each policy is presented in the form of 
an overview (specifying the insurer, the price, but also the policy details in the 
form of keywords). In addition, a ‘policy grade’ expressly labelled as such is 
displayed in a box below the defendant’s brand name. It has a numerical value 
ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 and is supplemented by grade names familiar from the 
school system: ‘sehr gut’ (‘excellent’), ‘gut’ (‘good’), ‘befriedigend’ 
(‘satisfactory’) or ‘ausreichend’ (‘sufficient’). 
7 At the top of the list of policies is one which is labelled (for the most part) as 
‘recommended for value for money’ and another that is labelled as ‘recommended 
for level of cover’. After that, the policies on offer are listed, in principle, in rising 
order of price. However, the customer always has the option (by clicking the 
relevant buttons) of displaying the policies in a different order: listed by provider 
(meaning alphabetically), in declining order of grades or in declining order of 
customer review scores. 
8 On all results pages, if the user touches the box containing the policy grade with 
the cursor of the computer mouse (in what is known as a mouseover or hover 
effect), a pop-up window opens containing the information underpinning the 
policy grade. The policy grade is based on a points system: points are awarded up 
to a certain maximum score under a series of different grading parameters, adding 
up to a total score. The grading parameters and the total number of points 
available differ depending on the type of insurance. The grading parameters are 
collated into criteria or categories (which differ according to the type of 
insurance). In all types of insurance, the criteria and categories are further 
subsumed into the ‘insurer module’ and the ‘policy module’, while the weighting 
of the two modules in relation to one another (that is to say, the ratio between their 
maximum scores) varies. Each grading parameter is marked with a green or 
yellow tick or a red cross. At the bottom of the window, users are informed that 
those symbols stand for ‘excellent’ (green tick), ‘average’ (yellow tick) and 
‘below average/not covered’ (red cross). Depending on the type of insurance, the 
pop-up windows sometimes display all grading parameters directly, sometimes 
only the different categories at first. Where the pop-up windows do not directly 
display all grading parameters but only the categories, the individual parameters 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-697/23 
 
4  
can be consulted via arrows at the beginning or end of the line specifying each 
category, as well as by clicking on the categories. 
9 In proceedings before the Landgericht Köln (Cologne Regional Court) against the 
first defendant and the second defendant (motor vehicle insurance) in 2020, the 
applicant claimed that comparison by means of policy grades contravened 
Paragraph 6(2)(2) of the UWG. The Landgericht Köln accepted that in its (final) 
judgment of 22 April 2020. The defendants subsequently revised their online 
presence for the motor vehicle insurance type and added further information on 
the policy grades. 
10 In the course of the main proceedings, the defendants also made changes in 
respect of the other types of insurance (at issue in the present case). Most pop-up 
windows now include a clickable line of text saying, ‘Show policy details’. In 
clicking on the text, the user receives more information on the grading parameters 
with short descriptions of the substantive reasons for the points awarded (for 
example, information on what share of certain medical services is reimbursed). 
11 In addition, all pop-up windows contain clickable text, above or below the grading 
parameters listed, saying, ‘More information on how the policy grade was 
calculated is available here’. Clicking on the text opens a new information page 
which explains in more detail how the policy grades are arrived at. Those 
information pages are all, in principle, identical in structure. First, they explain 
briefly, in general terms, what the defendant’s policy grades are. Next, a second 
section explains what the policy grade is derived from in the insurance type in 
question and describes and gives reasons for the categorisation and grading 
parameters. A third section explains how points are awarded – that is to say, what 
findings result in what number of points. Finally, it states what total scores result 
in what grades (conversion). 
12 The policies listed on the results pages (that is to say, the boxes pertaining to 
them) contain either a line of text on the bottom edge, with an arrow pointing 
downwards, saying, ‘Policy details’, ‘Service details’ or ‘More information on the 
policy’ or a button on the right-hand side (in the location of the ‘Apply online’, 
‘Apply’ or ‘Next’ button) labelled ‘Details’, through which the user can access 
additional information. However, no link is made between that information and 
the policy grade. 
13 By document of 26 November 2020, the applicant brought an action against the 
first defendant. The applicant claimed injunctive relief, a declaration of liability 
for damages and compensation for the extrajudicial legal costs incurred for the 
written warning notice. The applications for injunctive relief concerned specific 
forms of infringement, evidence of which was submitted in the form of annexes. 
They were directed against the presentation of policy grades as they appear on the 
results pages themselves but also against the presentation of policy grades on the 
results pages in combination with the associated information provided by pop-up 
windows. 
HUK-COBURG HAFTPLICHT-UNTERSTÜTZUNGS-KASSE 
 
5 
14 By document of 20 November 2021, the applicant expanded its action and 
extended the applications for injunctive relief brought against the first defendant 
as well as its request for a declaration of liability – differentiated according to the 
insurance type concerned – to include the operating company responsible for each. 
It also seeks information from the other defendants, supplementing each request 
for information with a subsidiary claim for compensation in the event of 
insufficient information being provided. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
15 In the applicant’s view, the presentation and awarding of policy grades by the 
defendant, even after the changes made in light of the judgment of the Landgericht 
Köln, constitute unlawful comparative advertising within the meaning of 
Paragraph 6(2)(2) of the UWG. Policy grades, it argues, are not features of a 
product, nor do they illustrate its price. On the contrary, they are pure value 
judgements which, the applicant submits, cannot be permitted as subject matter of 
comparative advertising. It argues that comparison by means of policy grades, 
such as that engaged in by the defendants on their web pages, is therefore 
unlawful in general. It also denies that policy grades are, as the defendants have 
argued, a mathematical summation of various comparisons of features, as the 
features of insurance contracts, such as levels of cover, cannot be added together. 
Rather than features, the applicant submits, the defendants add together subjective 
evaluations of features. That, it states, calls into question the fundamental 
difference between a fact and assessment of that fact. In the applicant’s view, 
policy grades altogether reflect a false objectivity and have great potential to 
mislead. The applicant also refers to national case-law on the grading of products 
by Stiftung Warentest, the official foundation for product testing, (in particular 
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), GRUR 1997, p. 942), under which a 
grade must be based on a neutral, objective and expert examination. 
16 The defendants consider that comparison by means of policy grades is permitted 
both in principle and in the specific case. They submit that the grading represents 
the total outcome of an objective comparison. The outcome, they state, is 
altogether based on verifiable features. They argue that, in addition to the naming 
of the individual grading parameters – that is to say, the features of the insurance 
policy in question – and their weightings, all the necessary information 
underpinning the policy grade is provided in great detail. In their view, the policy 
grade is ultimately simply the permissible mathematical summation of the total 
outcome. They argue that the selected grading parameters are, from the 
perspective of the target section of the public, material, relevant and representative 
features of an insurance policy. Neutrality, they submit, is of no import in the 
context of Paragraph 6(2)(2) of the UWG. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-697/23 
 
6  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
17 The outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings depends on the interpretation 
of Article 4(c) of Directive 2006/114, which can be clarified by obtaining an 
answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling. 
18 By the forms of order sought, the applicant also challenges the defendants’ 
comparison by means of policy grades regardless of the associated provision for 
users of extensive information about the grades which enables them to understand 
how the grades are formed. In that respect, the referring court considers it relevant 
whether or not Paragraph 6(2)(2) of the UWG does in fact prohibit comparison by 
means of grades in general. The interpretation of Paragraph 6(2)(2) of the UWG 
depends in turn on the interpretation of Article 4(c) of Directive 2006/114. 
19 In the view of the referring court, a score/grade never in itself gives the consumer 
information significant to the purchasing decision about the compared product but 
does so only when juxtaposed with other grades. Even by definition, a grade 
cannot constitute a feature of a product within the meaning of Article 4(c) of 
Directive 2006/114. Moreover, the awarding of scores or grades is always a 
subjective act, whereas Article 4(c) of Directive 2006/114 expressly demands 
objective comparison. The objectivity of the comparison is required in addition to 
verifiability and must therefore have a separate meaning independent of 
verifiability. On the other hand, Directive 2006/114 appears in principle to favour 
comparative advertising in terms of competition and consumer policy: where it, as 
described in recital 8 of that directive, compares material, relevant, verifiable and 
representative features and is not misleading, comparative advertising gives 
consumers a means of deriving the greatest possible advantage from the internal 
market. The requirements for the permissibility of such advertising must, 
therefore, not be defined in an excessively strict manner. Accordingly, it is the 
referring court’s understanding that the conditions set out in Article 4(c) of 
Directive 2006/114 should be interpreted broadly.