The original article was published on Krautinvest
In March 2026, there were three landmark rulings on the topic of medical cannabis:
Federal Court of Justice, ruling of March 26, 2026 (BGH – I ZR 74/25): Advertising for medical cannabis for certain diseases is prohibited; only factual information is permitted!
Federal Court of Justice, ruling of March 26, 2026 (I ZR 118/24): A treatment for erectile dysfunction based exclusively on a questionnaire does not meet the professional standards recognized in Germany under Section 9 of the German Law on the Advertising of Medicinal Products (HWG)! This raises the question of the scope of the freedom to provide services within the EU when the treating physicians are based in the EU, which is why the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)—a proceeding that could take up to three years and is also significant for medical cannabis.
Berlin Regional Court II, Order of March 4, 2026 (101 O 47/23): The North Rhine Chamber of Pharmacists has successfully obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting a pharmacy from collaborating with a telemedicine platform that violates the advertising ban and from processing prescriptions issued by cooperating physicians that are forwarded to the defendant via the platform.
This significantly narrows the scope of action for parties involved in the distribution of medical cannabis.
The Federal Court of Justice has clarified the definition of advertising, although a broad interpretation on a case-by-case basis remains necessary when distinguishing between permissible information and prohibited advertising. Furthermore, the same panel of the Federal Court of Justice determined that treatment based exclusively on questionnaires does not meet generally accepted professional standards, and that advertising for such treatment is impermissible.
These two rulings will lead to further proceedings against telemedicine platforms, and it is likely that violations of the advertising ban will now be identified more quickly and frequently by the courts, and that more preliminary injunctions will be granted.
A claim can result in significant costs, particularly if the violations are not sufficiently remedied and a fine (up to €250,000) is sought.
Pharmacists are also affected by this development, as they may be held jointly liable for the unlawful advertising of the telemedicine platforms with which they cooperate. In this regard as well, it is to be expected that there will be further proceedings against pharmacies in which the pharmacy’s active cooperation must be established, and which are likewise associated with significant costs and risks.
Pharmacies should avoid collaborating with telemedicine platforms that issue prescriptions exclusively based on a questionnaire due to the interpretation of the term “treatment.” Overall, telemedicine platforms are advised to adapt their public image and presentation to comply with the advertising ban under the German Medicines Advertising Act, to adopt a significantly more moderate and less promotional tone, and to initially offer mandatory video consultations and/or in-person appointments.
An amendment to the MedCanG is no longer expected for the time being, as Linda Heitmann explained in an interview with Georg Wurth of the DHV. The Federal Ministry of Health intends to push through its draft in its original version without changes (in-person visits to the doctor’s office, ban on mail-order sales), which the coalition partner SPD does not wish to support.
But even without an amendment to the MedCanG, it is clear that there are already sufficient regulations in place to curb the excesses in the telemedicine platform market. This process will take longer—up to several years—as seen, for example, with the implementation of the Novel Food Regulation in the CBD oil market. But the first step has clearly been taken.
Attorney Kai-Friedrich Niermann, KFN+ Law Office