You are using an old browser that may not function as expected.
For a better, safer browsing experience, please upgrade your browser.

Log in Become a Member

Hans-Peter Kröger warning letter in the letterbox? There's only one thing to do: stay calm - and don't sign the cease-and-desist letter immediately. Because wein.plus members receive fast and free expert help.

The "Fair Competition Protection Act" passed in September 2020 was supposed to curb the warning system. However, the first experiences of Hans-Peter Kröger, a lawyer and wine merchant specialising in online and competition law, have been different: "For me, the law, which is correct in its approach, has unfortunately been watered down considerably in the course of the adoption procedure. Even the reduced object values in it, which could make a legal dispute more favourable for those affected, have hardly been taken into account so far." The warning associations therefore continue to diligently write letters that annoy unsuspecting online wine merchants - and can also be quite expensive for them. However, these letters warn of formal violations that have been known for many years. Therefore, Kröger recommends online merchants: "At the beginning of the year, the terms used in the shop, the GTC, the cancellation policy, the associated form, the GTC and all other points of attack should be checked."

Currently, the use of the term "bekömmlich" (wholesome) is frequently warned, although it was already declared inadmissible in the context of wine in 2013. "Many wine traders take over the texts of the winemakers without checking them, and this point of attack has obviously not yet got around to them," Hans-Peter Kröger is surprised. But this can cost a lot of money: "Anyone who signs a warning letter without advice can expect costs of 1,500 euros and more. This is due to the still high amounts in dispute, which the courts often continue to agree with. A faulty cancellation policy in an online shop is worth 5,000 euros in dispute. If the cancellation form is missing, 5,000 euros are added on top," he knows from experience. With the help of a knowledgeable lawyer, however, these fees can often be reduced by a third or more. A good - and much cheaper - strategy could be to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with the warning party. However, this depends on the circumstances, the arguments of the warning association and the context.

Therefore,wein.plus offers its Business Premium members a free initial consultation with Hans-Peter Kröger as a first aid. The specialist has already become the first point of contact for many members in legal matters. He has many years of experience with warning letters - especially when it comes to wine. He also knows all the warning associations and their strategies.

In case of emergency, you can contact him quickly and directly viaour form. He will get back to you immediately, check the warning letter for you completely free of charge and draw up a strategy for you. Only then will he make you a concrete offer. As a Business Premium member, you have a great, monetary advantage: because his fixed-price offer, which is otherwise hardly usual only for members of wein.plus, is usually significantly lower than the consultancy fees normally incurred. You decide freely and without obligation whether you want to accept it.

Hans-Peter Kröger has summarised here some currently recurring warning cases of the members of wein.plus:

  • Infringement of Health Claims Regulation (HCVO)
    The use of health-related claims, especially the term "bekömmlich" has been a frequent topic of Hans-Peter Kröger's work since 2013: currently, the VGU (Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe e.V., founded in 1885) is issuing warnings against it, time and again also the VSV (Verbraucherschutzverein gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb e.V. - Fürstenfeldbruck) as well as the IDO - (Interessenverband für das Rechts- und Finanzconsulting deutscher Online-Unternehmen e.V., Leverkusen).
  • Outdated cancellation policy
    Even six years after the introduction of the current cancellation policy, this is still the reason for warning letters.
  • warning letter because of the use of inadmissible GTC clauses.
    The most frequent points of attack: Violation of transport risk, transparency requirement, comprehensibility requirement, transfer of ownership, right of withdrawal, place of performance, jurisdiction agreement.
  • Infringement ofmandatory information according to the Food Information Regulation (LMIV):
    warning letter due to non-disclosure of sulphites as well as non-disclosure of manufacturer, person responsible for food or importer, missing nutritional information.
  • Missing organic certification
  • warning letter due to incorrect imprint
  • warning letter due to incorrect information on availability
    (Association of Social Competition)
  • warning letter due to use of third-party images
  • Violations of the protection of minors

Related Magazine Articles

View All