Federal Court Ruling: Parship Divorce Not Required to Be Always Available

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made significant rulings regarding contract extensions for Parship, the online dating platform, in a decision announced on July 17. This ruling encompasses both favorable and unfavorable developments for its users. Specifically, the court has deemed the automatic extensions of six-month contracts previously implemented by Parship as invalid. However, consumer advocates were unable to convince the court that users should have an unconditional right to terminate their contracts with such dating platforms at any time.

The case arose from a collective lawsuit initiated by the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (vzbv) and the Consumer Center Brandenburg against Parship. They argued that the platform often unjustly prevented users from exiting contracts that they felt were restrictive and difficult to terminate. The III Civil Senate of the court, which handles matters related to service contracts, clarified that the extension clauses used by Parship for six-month contracts were not legal. The court agreed with the consumer organizations, stating that it is unreasonable for members to be required to cancel their contracts at least twelve weeks before the contract's expiration in order to avoid being tied to the platform for another full year.

Consumers whose six-month contracts were improperly extended are entitled to request refunds of their membership fees. The amount of the refund will depend on whether they participated in the relevant model declaratory action, which included over 1,000 users. Participants can reclaim fees dating back to 2018, while others may claim fees from 2022 onwards. The consumer organizations have provided a template letter online for affected users. However, it is important to note that Parship is only obligated to refund users for the extended period, not for the initial term of the contract.

The BGH also rejected the notion of a universal right to immediate cancellation under Section 627 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which pertains to service contracts established on a basis of special trust. The court found that online dating services like Parship do not establish the same level of personal relationship with the service provider as traditional offline matchmaking services do. Parship had previously cited a past BGH ruling to support this position, noting that the relevant legal provisions were enacted over 120 years ago.

For contracts with an initial duration of twelve or twenty-four months, the court found no unreasonable disadvantage resulting from the extension clauses under the legal framework that was in place until February 2022. Consequently, these longer contracts are not affected by this recent ruling. New contracts initiated after March 2022 are subject to revised terms due to a change in the law, which typically allows for monthly cancellations following the initial contract period. In 2021, Parship committed to enhancing transparency regarding usage fees and automatic contract renewals after discussions with EU consumer protection authorities.