The Supreme Court (BGH) and Telemedicine Report 2026

I. Introduction

II. BGH I ZR 74/25, Judgment of March 26, 2026

1. Violation of Section 10(1) HWG
2. Protection of Public Health
3. Product-Specific Advertising
4. Competition Law Aspects
5. Compliance with EU Law
6. Restrictions on public advertising for prescription drugs – from the ruling
7. Focus on factual information rather than advertising
8. Distinction between information and advertising

III. BGH I ZR 118/25, Order of March 26, 2026

1. Background
2. Legal Issues
3. Key Arguments
4. From the grounds for the decision

IV. Berlin Regional Court II – 101 O 47/23, Judgment of March 4, 2026

1. Injunctive relief pursuant to § 8(1) UWG in conjunction with § 3a UWG and § 10 HWG
2. Injunctive relief pursuant to § 8(1) UWG, § 3a UWG and § 11(1) ApoG
3. Threat of an administrative fine
4. From the grounds for the decision

V. Practical Implications

1. Advertising
2. Consequences of a violation
   1. Costs
   2. Substantive Equivalence
3. Europe
4. Pharmacies
   1. Costs of the claim / Amount in dispute
   2. Duration of Proceedings

VI. Problem – No Amendment to the MedCanG and the Concept of Treatment

VII. Final Conclusion