Clear Sailing for Comparison Portals? ECJ Boosts Check24 Ahead of Rematch
ECJ reinforces Check24's position in insurer guidelines - Commission enacts various measures to ensure enforcement of proposed policies.
Shopping for car insurance, cruises, or even funerals? Comparison sites like Check24 make it a breeze to compare offers and find the best deals. But what about their rating systems?
In a tussle with insurance giant HUK-Coburg, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has somewhat backed Check24's corner, but the battle is far from over. The ball is back in Munich's court (the Regional Court I).
Grades from 1.0 to 4.0 help consumers navigate insurance labyrinths, but HUK-Coburg sees this as deceptive marketing and took legal action. The lawsuit targeted several companies under Check24's umbrella.
HUK-Coburg contends that insurance is too complex to be discerned by a single rating, making the evaluation subjective and therefore misleading. The Munich court sought the ECJ's opinion on whether such comparisons were permissible when presented as ratings or points.
The judges expressed doubts whether Check24's offer falls under the category of "comparative advertising" under EU law, as they and HUK-Coburg don't fight for the same customer base.
Both parties declined comment on the litigation.
Consumer advocates voice concerns about comparison portals
Comparison portals wield market power: those not listed suffer a disadvantage. In the insurance business, they function as brokers. Commission from the insurer is "usually" the case with Check24, the company explains.
Sandra Klug, insurance expert at the Hamburg Consumer Center, advises consumers not to trust that a comparison portal offers a comprehensive, unbiased picture. "It is neither independent nor all-encompassing."
Portals might suggest simplified contract conclusion processes, potentially leaving consumers misinformed about complex insurance policies.
The Frankfurt Regional Court previously established that Check24 covered less than half of the private liability insurance market, checking only the tariffs of 38 out of 89 relevant insurers, which were primarily companies that would pay a commission for a contract conclusion.
- Check24
- ECJ
- Comparison Platform
- HUK-Coburg
- Funeral
- Cruise
- Munich Regional Court I
Enrichment Data:
According to recent European Union law and the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), comparison portals like Check24 assigning ratings to insurers as a form of comparative advertising must meet specific legal criteria under Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising.
However, in the case involving Check24 and HUK-Coburg, the ECJ clarified that an online comparison service provider like Check24 is not a competitor because it does not offer the insurance products directly but acts as an intermediary facilitating contracts between consumers and insurers. Therefore, the concept of ‘comparative advertising’ does not include practices by intermediaries who operate in a separate market from the companies whose products they compare and do not themselves provide those products or services.
Key Legal Points from the CJEU ruling (May 2025):
- Comparative advertising is defined as any advertising that explicitly or implicitly identifies a competitor or the goods/services offered by a competitor (Article 2(c) of Directive 2006/114/EC).
- In the case involving Check24 and the insurer HUK-Coburg, the court clarified that an online comparison service provider like Check24 is not itself a competitor because it does not offer the insurance products directly but acts as an intermediary facilitating contracts between consumers and insurers.
- This means that if the comparison portal is not a competitor (i.e., it does not itself sell insurance products), its assigning ratings does not fall under the scope of comparative advertising as defined by EU law and its related case law and its legitimacy and permissibility would be governed by other applicable consumer protection and advertising standards but not by the restrictive provisions specifically regulating comparative advertising between competitors.
In summary, Check24 and similar comparison portals may assign ratings to insurers, but this activity is not considered "comparative advertising" under EU law if they do not themselves compete in the insurance market. This exempts such intermediaries from the stricter rules that apply to comparative advertising between competitors. The legitimacy and permissibility of their ratings would then be governed by other applicable consumer protection and advertising standards but not by the restrictive provisions specifically regulating comparative advertising.
This clarification helps draw the legal boundary: only companies competing directly in the same market can engage in comparative advertising regulated by Directive 2006/114/EC. Intermediaries facilitating consumer choice without selling the compared products are not deemed competitors in this context.
- The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that Check24, a comparison platform, is not considered a competitor to insurers because it does not sell insurance products directly, but rather acts as an intermediary.
- According to the ECJ, the practice of assigning ratings by comparison platforms like Check24 does not fall under the definition of comparative advertising as it pertains to direct competitors.
- The ruling clarifies that the legitimacy and permissibility of rating systems used by comparison portals like Check24 would be governed by other applicable consumer protection and advertising standards.
- The ECJ's decision has implications for various industries, including car insurance, cruises, and even funeral services, where comparison portals may continue to operate and offer ratings without strictly adhering to the guidelines specific to comparative advertising between direct competitors.
