European Court of Justice Supports Check24 in Insurance Rating Dispute

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has provided a significant boost to the insurance comparison platform Check24, amidst a legal challenge regarding its rating system for insurance products. The case revolves around whether comparison sites can assign ratings to complex insurance offerings.

Consumers often turn to platforms like Check24 for quick overviews of various products and services, including complex insurance options. However, a dispute arose concerning the legitimacy of Check24's rating system, which evaluates insurance policies on a scale from 1.0 to 4.0. The insurance company HUK-Coburg initiated legal action against Check24, claiming that such ratings constitute unfair comparative advertising and sought both an injunction and damages.

HUK-Coburg argues that insurance policies are too intricate to be effectively reduced to a single numerical score, asserting that the ratings represent subjective opinions and are, therefore, illegal. The ECJ was asked to determine if ratings given by comparison sites like Check24 can be considered permissible under EU law.

The Munich I Regional Court, which is handling the case, must now examine whether Check24's activities fall under the definition of 'comparative advertising' as outlined in EU legislation. The ECJ judges expressed some skepticism, suggesting that the legal status of Check24 and HUK-Coburg as competitors could be a crucial factor, given that HUK-Coburg provides insurance services while Check24 functions solely as a comparison and brokerage platform.

Both companies refrained from commenting on the ongoing legal proceedings. Consumer advocates caution that comparison sites often wield considerable market power, and being excluded from such platforms can hinder a company's competitive edge.

Check24 operates primarily as a broker, earning commissions from insurance providers when customers purchase policies through its website. This business model raises questions about the impartiality of the ratings, as highlighted by Sandra Klug, an insurance expert from the Hamburg Consumer Center. Klug advises consumers to remain cautious, emphasizing that comparison platforms may not provide a complete picture of the available market options, leading to potential misinformation regarding the simplicity of contract acquisitions.

In a previous case, the Frankfurt Regional Court found that Check24 did not represent a comprehensive selection of the market for private liability insurance, covering only 38 out of 89 potential insurers. Furthermore, it was noted that Check24 primarily featured companies willing to pay commissions for policy placements.