“Please contact the manufacturer” – Why this phrase can cost retailers dearly

The Ingolstadt Regional Court has made it clear: the seller alone is liable under the statutory warranty. Anyone who simply refers customers to the manufacturer is misleading them about their consumer rights. 

Facts of the case and background

In February 2024, a consumer purchased a fridge-freezer from the online shop of a major electronics retailer for EUR 899.99. A good 16 months later, in June 2025, he reported a technical fault with the appliance to the retailer by email. The customer service response read: “For large appliances, the manufacturer offers an on-site repair service carried out by authorised specialists. To make a claim under your warranty, please contact the manufacturer directly.” A further email from customer services even stated that the warranty had already expired and that the customer should contact the manufacturer directly regarding a repair subject to a charge.

The buyer happened to be an employee of the Federal Association of Consumer Organisations. The association issued a cease-and-desist notice to the retailer and – after no declaration of cessation was provided – took the matter to court. Legally, the case concerned an action for an injunction under competition law pursuant to the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). At its core, however, the case centred on a question that constantly arises in the day-to-day lives of retailers and consumers. Who is actually responsible in the event of a material defect?

Ruling of the Ingolstadt Regional Court: The warranty is the seller’s responsibility

The Ingolstadt Regional Court upheld the claim in its entirety. The retailer may not refer consumers who assert warranty claims to the manufacturer in this manner.

The statutory warranty (Sections 434, 437 of the German Civil Code (BGB)) is a claim arising from the contract of sale and is therefore always directed against the seller. If the goods are defective upon delivery, the buyer may initially demand subsequent performance, i.e. repair or replacement, at their discretion. In the case of movable goods, these claims generally become time-barred two years after delivery (Section 438(1)(3) of the German Civil Code (BGB)). A guarantee, on the other hand, is a voluntary additional undertaking, often by the manufacturer, which is provided ‘without prejudice to statutory claims’ alongside the warranty (Section 443 of the German Civil Code (BGB)). Claims arising from a manufacturer’s guarantee are made against the manufacturer. They do not replace the seller’s liability. The expiry of a guarantee therefore does not indicate whether statutory warranty rights still apply. 

On the basis of these principles, the Ingolstadt Regional Court ruled as follows: the blanket reference to the manufacturer is misleading for consumers. In the court’s view, the average consumer interprets the wording ‘To assert your warranty or guarantee claims, please contact the manufacturer directly’ tomean that the retailer bears no liability whatsoever, either under the manufacturer’s guarantee or under the statutory warranty. However, this is objectively incorrect. 

Whilst businesses are entitled to hold their own legal opinion in the event of a dispute, the court found that in this instance the email did not give rise to any doubt or suggest a subjective interpretation. The customer was presented with what appeared to be a settled legal position. According to the Regional Court, neither the specific circumstances of this case nor the fact that the customer was a ‘professional’ altered this conclusion. The retailer did argue that this was an individual communication and an oversight on the part of an employee, and furthermore that the recipient was legally knowledgeable. However, the court did not accept this line of argument. In any event, the customer’s legal background is irrelevant if the trader was unable to recognise their expertise. Furthermore, a single instance of misrepresentation towards a single consumer is sufficient to constitute misleading conduct. A systematic approach is not required. The fact that the customer was not deterred and nevertheless continued to assert his rights against the retailer is also irrelevant. Nor did a clarification regarding the obligation to bear the costs, which was only provided in a subsequent email, alter this assessment. 

It is worth noting that the reference to the manufacturer regarding genuine warranty claims was not the subject of the legal dispute. The claimant had expressly not raised any objection to this. The problem, therefore, lay in the conflation of statutory warranty and commercial warranty, and the impression this created that the statutory warranty was also the manufacturer’s responsibility.

Conclusion and practical advice

The decision of the Ingolstadt Regional Court is consistent with the statutory framework. The following therefore applies to retailers: 

• Make a clear distinction: In customer communications, FAQs and standard text blocks, the statutory warranty and the (manufacturer’s) guarantee must be kept strictly separate. Combined terms such as ‘guarantee/warranty’ must be avoided at all costs.
• State your own responsibility: It is perfectly acceptable to offer the manufacturer’s service as an additional, often faster option. However, this must only be done with the explicit statement that the statutory rights in respect of defects vis-à-vis the retailer remain unaffected.
• Train customer service staff: Even a single incorrect email can trigger a warning letter, an injunction and the threat of an administrative fine. Alleged ‘oversights’ by a member of staff do not exonerate the business.
• Check warranty statements: Anyone providing their own warranties must, in the sale of consumer goods, point out, amongst other things, that statutory (warranty) rights are provided free of charge and are not restricted by the warranty (Section 479(1)(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)).

(Ingolstadt Regional Court, judgement of 24 July 2026, ref. 1 HK O 1352/25)