Strat Cann
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled that advertising for medical treatments with medical cannabis violates the country’s law on advertising medicinal products.
In a ruling posted on March 26, 2026, the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which handles competition law in Germany, ruled that a company operating an online platform that brokers medical cannabis treatments and connects patients with cooperating doctors violates medicinal product advertising law by publicly advertising prescription drugs.
The defendant, the Bloomwell Group, Europe’s largest digital platform for medical cannabis-based therapy, based in Frankfurt, had taken the challenge to the top court. Bloomwell argued that its approach to advertising its services was not an endorsement that would violate German law, which the court ultimately disputed. The plaintiff in the case was the German Federation of Consumer Organizations (Wettbewerbszentrale) which argued that the defendant’s website was a violation of Germany’s advertising ban under pharmaceutical law.
In a statement on Linkedin, Bloomwell CEO Niklas Kouparanis said the ruling focused on whether medical cannabis should be regarded as a form of therapy in general or whether it is subject to the strict advertising regulations for ready-to-use medicinal products. He noted that the complaints brought to the court were based on two screenshots of a website that has since been changed.
“As a result of the ruling, we will thoroughly examine the presentation of our website and make minor adjustments if necessary,” said Kouparanis. “The website at issue in the judgment has not existed in this form for years. Therefore, nothing stands in the way of the ongoing operation of our app and our website. In addition, the ruling shows that the legal apparatus works, and that an adjustment of the MedCanG is not necessary.”
Germany’s Medicinal Cannabis Act (MedCanG), which came into force on April 1, 2024, regulates medical cannabis explicitly as a pharmaceutical product.
The ruling, Kouparanis added, will “massively” restrict patients’ ability “to obtain comprehensive information about cannabis therapies” and characterized the judges’ ruling as “absurd.”
From the judge’s ruling:
“According to Section 3 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG), cannabis for medical purposes is a prescription-only medicine. The defendant advertised this product in the prohibited presentations. They did not limit itself to stating an active ingredient, but rather named medical cannabis and further specified its applications.
“The fact that they did not mention specific product names or manufacturers is irrelevant. Even advertising that refers to an entire class of prescription-only medicines for the treatment of the same condition can constitute advertising for medicinal products. The fact that the decision to prescribe medical cannabis rests exclusively with physicians does not preclude the classification as advertising for medicinal products in this case. Due to the defendant’s statements regarding the possible uses of medical cannabis, there was a risk, which Section 10 Paragraph 1 of the German Advertising Act for Medicinal Products (HWG) aims to prevent, that consumers would insist on a prescription for such a medicine during doctor’s visits.
“The online presentations are designed to promote the sale of medical cannabis. The isolated presentation of the benefits of cannabis treatment goes beyond providing appropriate, comprehensive information about possible therapies using medical cannabis.”
German high court rules against medicinal cannabis advertisements
https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2026/2026055.html?nn=17732580
Advertising for medical treatments with medical cannabis violates the right to advertise medicinal products
Year of issue2026
Date of publicationMarch 26, 2026
No. 055/2026
Judgment of 26 March 2026 – I ZR 74/25
The I responsible, inter alia, for competition law. The Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has ruled that the operator of an internet platform for arranging treatments with medical cannabis violates the prohibition on public advertising of prescription drugs under the law on medicinal products if he enables treatment requests from cooperating doctors by referring to complaints that can be treated with medical cannabis.
Facts:
The applicant is the competition centre. The defendant operates an internet portal for arranging medical treatment with cannabis for medical purposes. There, she offers interested parties the opportunity to make appointments with practicing physicians for medical cannabis treatments. The defendant receives remuneration from the doctors for her services. The group with the defendant includes a pharmaceutical wholesaler authorized to import and trade medicinal products with a focus on cannabis for medicinal purposes, as well as a company that operates a marketplace for mail-order pharmacies for cannabis for medicinal purposes and offers equipment for cannabis consumption there.
The plaintiff sees the defendant’s website as a violation of the prohibition on advertising under the law on remedies.
Previous process history:
The Regional Court dismissed the application for injunctive relief. On the applicant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal granted the application in respect of certain Internet sites.
In its appeal admitted by the Court of Appeal in that regard, the defendant continues to pursue its application for dismissal.
Decision of the Federal Court of Justice:
The defendant’s appeal was unsuccessful.
The Court of Appeal rightly assumed that the defendant had violated the prohibition on public advertising of prescription drugs regulated in § 10 para. 1 HWG.
According to § 3 para. 1 sentence 1 of the Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG), cannabis for medical purposes is a prescription drug. The defendant advertised this in the prohibited representations. It has not limited itself to specifying an active ingredient, but has named medical cannabis and further individualized it by specifying its areas of application. The fact that she did not mention any specific product names or specific manufacturers is irrelevant. An advertisement referring to an entire class of prescription drugs used to treat the same condition may also constitute an advertisement for drugs. In the event of a dispute, the acceptance of a pharmaceutical advertisement does not preventthat the decision to prescribe medical cannabis is the sole responsibility of doctors. Based on the defendant’s information on the possible uses of medical cannabis, there was a risk, to be avoided by § 10 para. 1 HWG, that consumers would press for the prescription of such a medicinal product during doctor’s visits. The Internet presentations are designed to promote the sale of medical cannabis. The isolated presentation of the benefits of cannabis treatment goes beyond appropriate comprehensive information about possible therapies using medical cannabis. that consumers would push for the prescription of such a medicine during doctor’s visits. The Internet presentations are designed to promote the sale of medical cannabis. The isolated presentation of the benefits of cannabis treatment goes beyond appropriate comprehensive information about possible therapies using medical cannabis. that consumers would push for the prescription of such a medicine during doctor’s visits. The Internet presentations are designed to promote the sale of medical cannabis. The isolated presentation of the benefits of cannabis treatment goes beyond appropriate comprehensive information about possible therapies using medical cannabis.
Lower courts:
Frankfurt am Main Regional Court – Judgment of 27 February 2024 – 3-08 O 540/23
Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main – Judgment of 6 March 2025 – 6 U 74/24
The relevant regulations are:
§ 3 para. 1 UWG
Unfair commercial acts are inadmissible.
§ 3a UWG
Anyone who violates a legal provision which is also intended to regulate market conduct in the interests of market participants and the violation is likely to have a significant impact on the interests of consumers, other market participants or competitors is acting unfairly.
§ 10 para. 1 HWG
Prescription medicines may only be advertised to doctors, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists and persons who lawfully trade in these medicines.
§ 3 para. 1 sentence 1 MedCanG
Cannabis for medicinal purposes may only be prescribed by doctors or administered as part of medical treatment or left to another person for immediate consumption.
Karlsruhe, March 26, 2026
Press Office of the Federal Court of Justice
76125 Karlsruhe
Telephone (0721) 159-5013
Telefax (0721) 159-5501
