{"id":16561,"date":"2026-03-24T17:32:50","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T16:32:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ra-juedemann.de\/?p=16561"},"modified":"2026-03-24T17:32:50","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T16:32:50","slug":"cease-and-desist-letters-from-lawyers-over-email-marketing-excessive-fees-in-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ra-juedemann.de\/en\/cease-and-desist-letters-from-lawyers-over-email-marketing-excessive-fees-in-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cCease\u2011and\u2011desist letters from lawyers over email marketing \u2013 excessive fees in dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cease\u2011and\u2011desist letters from lawyers over email advertising: Inflated amount in dispute and questionable damages<\/h1>\n

Unsolicited email advertising (\u201cspam\u201d) is unlawful and can be pursued by way of a cease\u2011and\u2011desist letter. Some lawyers are currently making very aggressive use of this \u2013 including a Berlin\u2011based attorney who, in a cease\u2011and\u2011desist letter we have before us concerning unsolicited email advertising, asserts an amount in dispute of EUR 9,000 and, in addition, claims \u201cdamages\u201d of EUR 400. Recent decisions of the Berlin courts, however, make it clear that this approach goes far beyond what the case law considers permissible.<\/p>\n

Legal background: Email advertising is always an unreasonable nuisance<\/h2>\n

The starting point is section 7(2) no. 3 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG): under this provision, email advertising without the recipient\u2019s prior express consent is always deemed an unreasonable nuisance. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht, KG) have repeatedly confirmed this assessment and clarified that the legislature does not regard the interference with the individual \u2013 whether in a private or business context \u2013 as negligible. Other lawyers are likewise entitled to defend themselves against such practices.<\/p>\n

It is important to note that the courts do not look only at the effort involved in deleting a single email. What is decisive is also the underlying \u201cdangerousness\u201d of the advertising practice \u2013 that is, the risk of becoming part of a mass phenomenon. Email advertising is cheap and easy for the sender, whereas for the recipient there is an obvious risk that a large number of advertising emails will significantly disrupt email traffic in the long term. From this, the courts derive a serious interest in injunctive relief \u2013 but that interest also has its limits.<\/p>\n

Assessment of the amount in dispute: Why EUR 3,000 value (Gegenstandswert) is the \u201cceiling\u201d<\/h3>\n

According to the established case law of the BGH, the amount in dispute is determined by the claimant\u2019s interest in preventing further infringements. This interest is assessed on the basis of the so\u2011called \u201cattack factor\u201d: how serious is the conduct to be prohibited, what scale, intensity and frequency of further interferences are to be expected, and how great is the risk of repetition?\u200b<\/span><\/p>\n

On this basis, the Berlin Court of Appeal has clearly established in a series of decisions:<\/p>\n