“Cheaper than any other business in the county”, “With us the technician comes the same day, elsewhere you wait a week”, a table with three columns and green ticks only in your own: comparisons are an effective tool on a services page because they spare visitors the work of putting offers side by side. German law expressly allows such comparisons, but not without conditions. The Act against Unfair Competition (UWG) defines when advertising counts as comparative and lists the six cases in which it is unfair (UWG, Section 6(2)). For small businesses the first half is the real trap: a comparison does not only exist once a name is mentioned. It is enough that readers can tell who is meant. This article shows when a sentence on your website becomes a comparison, which conditions it has to meet, what a price comparison with date and source looks like, why a “usual offer” column is no safe way out, and how to fill a comparison table so that every cell holds up when someone asks.
When a sentence becomes a comparison
The legal definition is deliberately broad: comparative advertising is any advertising that directly or indirectly identifies a competitor or the goods or services a competitor offers (UWG, Section 6(1)).
The direct case is a name, a logo or an address in the advertising. Indirect means: no name, but identifiable. A painter in a small town writes “unlike the firm on the market square, we work with little dust”, a bike shop sets its workshop prices against those “of the other shop in town”. No name, but every local reader knows who is meant.
Under the Act, a competitor is any business that stands in a specific competitive relationship with one or more other businesses as a supplier or buyer of goods or services (UWG, Section 2(1) point 4). What matters is whether both businesses compete for the same customers, not whether they share an industry label. The Court of Justice of the European Union has drawn the line for indirect references: even a reference to a whole type of product can be comparative advertising if it is possible to identify the business or its goods as the ones the advertising actually refers to (CJEU, Case C-381/05). According to the same judgment, it makes no difference that several competitors become identifiable at once (CJEU, Case C-381/05). On a website such references can sit in places like these:
- Home page and header: “faster”, “cheaper”, “more thorough than others”. A comparative calls for a counterpart, and readers look for one.
- Pricing page: comparisons with “workshop prices”, “dealer prices” or “the market price”, for example as a struck-through figure next to your own.
- Comparison table: your own column against a column with another business’s name, logo or a description that fits only one business.
- FAQs and “why us” sections: answers that start with “Unlike the chains in the region …”.
- Landing pages for ads: pages aimed at searches for a competitor’s name that pick up that name in the copy.
No competitor identifiable? Then truth is what counts
The six cases in Section 6(2)
Once a competitor is identifiable, the Act tests the comparison against six conditions. A business that advertises comparatively acts unfairly if the comparison breaches any one of them (UWG, Section 6(2)).
The European basis, the Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising, lists eight conditions in Article 4 (Directive 2006/114/EC, Article 4). German law implements them; the condition of not being misleading is not part of Section 6 but of the ban on misleading practices, which expressly covers statements made in comparative advertising (UWG, Section 5(4)). What matters in practice is that the conditions apply together. The Directive states in its recitals that the conditions should be cumulative and complied with in full (Directive 2006/114/EC, recital 11). A comparison that meets five conditions and fails the sixth is unfair.
Scroll table sideways
| Point | What the law requires | What it means on your website |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose | Maintenance contract next to maintenance contract, not next to a single repair |
| 2 | Objectively related to material, relevant, verifiable and representative features or the price | Features that matter for the buying decision and can be checked |
| 3 | No risk of confusion between the advertiser and a competitor | Your own name, your own colors, no imitation of other trade marks |
| 4 | No unfair advantage taken of, or harm done to, the reputation of another trade mark | Name other brands only as far as the comparison needs it, no competitor logo as an eye-catcher |
| 5 | No discrediting or denigrating of a competitor’s goods, activities or circumstances | Factual statements instead of judgments about work or people |
| 6 | Nothing presented as an imitation or replica of goods under a protected trade mark | No “just like brand X, only cheaper” |
For the websites of small businesses three points matter most. Point 1 requires like to be compared with like: goods or services that meet the same needs or serve the same purpose (UWG, Section 6(2) point 1). Point 2 concerns the substance of the comparison. It has to relate objectively to one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features or to the price of the goods or services (UWG, Section 6(2) point 2). Picking a single feature that hardly matters for the decision, but on which your business happens to come out ahead, does not meet that standard. And point 5 draws the line on tone: a business that discredits or denigrates a competitor’s goods, services, activities or personal or business circumstances acts unfairly (UWG, Section 6(2) point 5).
Verifiable means readers can check
The verifiability condition sounds like a duty to keep evidence in a drawer. It goes further.
In a case about a price comparison, the European Court of Justice ruled that a feature whose basis of comparison is not stated in the advertising is only verifiable if the advertiser indicates where and how the audience can easily find out the elements of the comparison, so that they can check them or have them checked (CJEU, Case C-356/04). For your website this means that a claim such as “much cheaper than the workshops nearby” needs a route to its basis right next to it. In practice a short line below the table or the sentence can be enough, for example: “Comparison of prices for an annual service based on the published price lists of all specialist workshops in the city, as of [date], list available on request.” If you cannot or do not want to disclose the basis, do not publish the comparison.
A selection is particularly delicate. Advertising that highlights a lower general price level can be misleading if it does not make clear that the comparison covered only a sample of products and not all of them (CJEU, Case C-356/04). Then there is the evidence side. The Directive obliges member states to give courts or administrative authorities the power to require the advertiser to furnish evidence of the accuracy of factual claims where this appears appropriate in the individual case, and for comparative advertising to do so within a short period (Directive 2006/114/EC, Article 7). Anyone who starts gathering the basis of a comparison only after receiving a warning letter may no longer find the competitor’s spring price list. The same logic, no claim without a verifiable basis, applies in a stricter form to environmental claims on websites, and if you use reviews as a comparison argument, the requirements are covered in the article on customer reviews on your website. Every comparison therefore needs a small file:
- A dated screenshot or PDF of every external source: the competitor’s price list, quote or service description
- Your own calculation: which items were compared, which were not and why
- The status of your own prices and services on the same reference date
- For time statements such as response times, your own job data for the period the value comes from
- A review date on which the comparison is checked, adjusted or removed
Price comparisons with date and source
Price is expressly a permitted subject of comparison; the Act names it alongside features (UWG, Section 6(2) point 2). But a price comparison is only as good as its basis.
Anyone who offers goods or services to consumers or advertises to them stating prices has to state total prices (PAngV, Section 3(1)). In a comparison this means total price next to total price. Your own final price including travel next to a competitor’s base price without travel is not an objective comparison, even if both figures are correct on their own. What applies to “from” prices, hourly rates and discounts, and when net prices are enough, is explained in the article on pricing and advertising claims.
The second test is whether the businesses themselves are comparable. The European Court of Justice dealt with a price comparison in which prices from the advertiser’s large stores were set against prices from smaller stores of the competition. Such a comparison can be unlawful; the exception is when consumers are informed of this difference clearly and in the advertising message itself (CJEU, Case C-562/15). Applied to small businesses: emergency rate next to standard rate, collection price next to delivery price, a package with maintenance next to a single job. Differences like these belong right next to the comparison, not in a footnote on another page.
Prices age, the comparison stays online
“Usual offer”: no safe way out
An anonymous column looks like an obvious way out: “usual offer”, “conventional providers”, “the average”. It seems cautious but only solves part of the problem.
If there are only two or three providers of the same service in your area, a column without a name still identifies your competitors. The judgment on product types carries over to this situation: even a statement without a name can be comparative advertising if it is possible to tell whom it actually targets, and several identifiable competitors do not change that (CJEU, Case C-381/05). Then all six conditions apply, including verifiability, and a column without values you can prove fails point 2.
If the column really stays anonymous, it is no longer a comparison within the meaning of Section 6, but the duty to tell the truth remains. The cell “usual offer: travel charged extra” is a factual claim about the market. False or deceptive statements about the price, the way it is calculated or the conditions of the service make a commercial practice misleading (UWG, Section 5(2) point 2). If you write “usual”, you should be able to prove that it is usual, for example with your own dated overview of the published price lists in your area. Without such a basis the column is not more cautious than a name, only harder to defend.
The lower-risk route
Response time, scope, warranty: what belongs in the rows
A comparison table consists of rows, and every row is a statement of its own. Response times are particularly delicate: a strong argument and a risky one.
A response time concerns when a service is provided, and statements about that may be neither false nor deceptive (UWG, Section 5(2) point 1). In a comparison it also has to be verifiable for both sides. For your own column that means a value from your own job data with the period it covers, or a contractual commitment that you actually keep. For the other column there is rarely a reliable basis. Then the cell stays empty, or the row goes. Scope of service is the row that point 1 depends on. A package with maintenance next to a single job does not automatically meet the same need. Either compare packages of the same size, or show the differences in the table itself: which services are included, what costs extra, which term applies. If a monthly price is in the table, the minimum term belongs in the same cell or right next to it. Qualifications only work as a row if they are true: statements about competence, status, approval or memberships fall under the ban on misleading practices (UWG, Section 5(2) point 3). How this plays out for protected professional titles is shown in the article on the website of an architecture firm.
Statutory rights do not belong in a comparison table at all. A row “statutory warranty” with a tick in your own column suggests that this is an advantage over others. The annex to the Act lists exactly this among the practices towards consumers that are unlawful in all circumstances: falsely stating or creating the impression that rights given by law are a distinctive feature of the offer (UWG, annex item 10). If you voluntarily offer more than the law requires, such as your own guarantee with clear terms, you can show that, but you have to separate it clearly from the statutory claim. More examples of this group are in the article on advertising claims without legal risk.
No disparaging, no confusion
A comparison may be clear. It may not disparage. The line runs between fact and put-down: “Our offer includes disposal, the compared offer does not” is a verifiable statement. “Others just leave your rubble behind” is a sweeping put-down.
For factual claims about competitors there is a separate rule besides Section 6: a business acts unfairly if it asserts or spreads facts about a competitor’s goods, services or business that are likely to damage the business or the owner’s credit, unless the facts are demonstrably true (UWG, Section 4 point 2). Whoever makes such a claim must therefore be able to prove it in a dispute.
Points 3, 4 and 6 concern other businesses’ trade marks. A comparison may not create confusion between the advertiser and a competitor or their trade marks (UWG, Section 6(2) point 3); the ban on misleading practices also names the risk of confusion in connection with comparative advertising explicitly (UWG, Section 5(3) point 1). It may not take unfair advantage of, or harm, the reputation of another trade mark (UWG, Section 6(2) point 4), and it may not present goods as an imitation or replica of goods under a protected trade mark (UWG, Section 6(2) point 6). For your website this means: other names only as text and only as far as the comparison needs them. Other logos, color schemes and product photos do not belong in your table. How to integrate your own mark cleanly instead is shown in the article on the logo for your website.
Scroll table sideways
| Risky wording | Why it is open to challenge | Factual alternative |
|---|---|---|
| “Cheaper than everyone else around here” | Not verifiable, claim of superiority without proof | “Fixed price for the annual service, as of [date]” |
| “With the competition you wait forever” | Disparaging, not a verifiable fact | State your own scheduling from job data, with the period covered |
| “Just like brand X, only cheaper” | Presented as an imitation or replica | State your own features without reference to the other brand |
| “Including statutory warranty” | A statutory right presented as a special feature | State a voluntary extra separately and with its terms |
| “Usual offer” column without a basis | Identifiable if there are few providers, otherwise an unproven market claim | Compare your own packages with each other |
Filling the comparison table properly
In XICflow the comparison table is one of the more than 40 blocks in the editor (XICflow features page).
According to the block documentation it is a table comparing several offers or variants, with column headings and rows; yes/no values are shown as an icon. These icons deserve a second look: a tick in your own column and a cross in the other is a factual claim about the competitor, even if no word is written. For search engine markup the block can also carry prices; the documentation ties this to a clear condition: only fill it in when the page also states the price visibly, because the markup describes what is shown. If you revise copy in conversation with the AI assistant – documentation, changes to blocks arrive as a proposal card when you send a message, and nothing on the page changes until you apply it. Whether a comparative statement is true is something only your business can judge. The following steps keep the table defensible:
- Define the subject. Which service is being compared, for which need? Only offers with the same purpose belong in one table.
- Choose the counterpart. Your own packages against each other, or named competitors with publicly verifiable information. An anonymous column only with your own dated basis.
- Select the rows. Material and representative features that customers need for their decision. No rows with statutory rights, no side issues in which you happen to come out ahead.
- Back up the cells. Save source and date for every external statement, keep a screenshot or PDF. What cannot be backed up stays empty.
- Name the basis. A line below the table with source, reference date and a note if only a selection was compared.
- Set a review date. Put a date in the calendar on which prices and statements are checked. Whatever is no longer true is changed or removed. How a changed page goes live again is described in how it works.
When a competitor sends a warning letter
Above all, the competitor concerned can take action against an unfair comparison.
Anyone who engages in an unlawful commercial practice can be required to remove its effects and, if there is a risk of repetition, to refrain from it (UWG, Section 8(1)). Those entitled to claim include every competitor that sells or buys goods or services to a not insignificant extent and not just occasionally (UWG, Section 8(3) point 1); registered associations and chambers can also take action. Before court proceedings, the Act provides for a warning letter: those entitled should warn the other party and give it the opportunity to settle the dispute by signing a cease-and-desist declaration backed by an appropriate contractual penalty (UWG, Section 13(1)). Claims for injunction and removal become time-barred after six months (UWG, Section 11(1)); the period starts when the claim has arisen and the claimant has learned, or without gross negligence should have learned, of the circumstances and the identity of the other party (UWG, Section 11(2)). If a warning letter arrives, take the deadline seriously, have the evidence from your comparison file ready, and do not sign a cease-and-desist declaration without review; discuss it with a lawyer specializing in competition law. This article is not a substitute for legal advice on an individual case.