BFSG warning letters (Abmahnung): what you risk in Germany and how to respond

Who can take action against barriers?

The BFSG first places enforcement in the hands of market surveillance. The competent body is the Marktüberwachungsstelle der Länder für die Barrierefreiheit von Produkten und Dienstleistungen (MLBF), the joint market surveillance body of all 16 German federal states, based in Magdeburg. Under § 28 BFSG it checks a service if it has reason to believe that the requirements are not met. It also carries out random checks without a specific reason.

Consumers can report barriers to the MLBF or apply under § 32 BFSG for it to open proceedings. Associations recognised under § 15(3) of the German Disability Equality Act (BGG) and qualified entities under § 3(1) sentence 1 no. 1 of the German Injunctions Act (UKlaG) can make this application as well. In addition, § 34 BFSG opens the conciliation body under the Disability Equality Act.

Alongside this there is the civil-law route through the German Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). Under § 8(3) UWG, injunctive relief and removal can be claimed in particular by competitors, qualified trade associations entered in the list kept by the Federal Office of Justice, qualified consumer associations and chambers of industry and commerce. A private individual is not one of these claimants, but can turn to market surveillance.

Can BFSG breaches be the subject of a warning letter at all?

A warning letter under competition law requires an unfair commercial practice. For breaches of laws outside the UWG, § 3a UWG is decisive: a person acts unfairly who infringes a statutory provision that is also intended to regulate market conduct in the interest of market participants, if the infringement is likely to appreciably harm the interests of consumers, other market participants or competitors.

Whether the duties under § 14 BFSG are such market conduct rules is disputed. Arguments for both sides can be drawn from the text of the law. In favour: under § 1(1), the BFSG is meant to ensure accessibility in the interest of consumers and users, and § 14 makes offering a service subject to conditions. Against: the law contains its own enforcement system with market surveillance, applications by associations, conciliation and fines.

Up to our review date of 13 November 2026 we did not find a published court decision that settles this question for the BFSG. Case law is still developing. For qualified consumer associations, a claim under § 2 UKlaG, which covers breaches of consumer protection laws, may also come into consideration. The BFSG is not expressly named in the list of examples in § 2(2) UKlaG; that list, however, begins with “in particular” and is therefore not exhaustive. Here too the classification is open.

What can actually happen?

• Request from the authority: if market surveillance finds that a service does not meet the requirements, it asks you to take suitable measures within a reasonable deadline (§ 29(1) BFSG). If only the information under Annex 3 is missing or incomplete, a corresponding procedure applies to this formal non-conformity (§ 30 BFSG).
• Prohibition as a last step: if the correction is not made, a second request follows with the threat of a prohibition. The authority can then order the offer to be discontinued. If you prove conformity, it lifts the order (§ 29(2) and (3) BFSG).
• Fine: anyone who offers or provides a service contrary to § 14(1) BFSG risks a fine of up to 100,000 euros. For other administrative offences, such as information not provided, the upper limit is 10,000 euros (§ 37 BFSG). These are maximum amounts, not fixed rates.
• Warning letter: a competitor or association asks you, out of court, to stop the infringement and gives you the opportunity to settle the dispute with a cease-and-desist declaration backed by a reasonable contractual penalty (§ 13(1) UWG).
• Costs of the warning letter: if the warning letter is justified and contains the mandatory information, the sender can claim reimbursement of the necessary expenses (§ 13(3) UWG).
• Preliminary injunction and lawsuit: without an agreement, the claim can be brought before a court, including in summary proceedings (§ 12(1) UWG). Court and legal fees are then added.
• Contractual penalty: if you have signed a cease-and-desist declaration and infringe again later, the agreed contractual penalty becomes due. § 13a UWG sets out criteria for a reasonable amount.

What must a warning letter contain?

Under § 13(2) UWG, a warning letter must state the following clearly and understandably:

1. 1The name or company name of the sender and, if represented, also that of the representative, such as the law firm.
2. 2Why the sender is entitled to make the claim, for example as a competitor or registered association under § 8(3) UWG.
3. 3Whether and how much reimbursement of expenses is claimed and how the amount is calculated.
4. 4The infringement with the actual circumstances, i.e. which barrier was found on which page.
5. 5In the cases of § 13(4) UWG, a note that no reimbursement of expenses can be claimed.

When a warning letter may be open to challenge

If a warning letter is unjustified or lacks mandatory information, you can in principle claim reimbursement of your own defence costs under § 13(5) UWG, up to the amount the sender claims. For an unjustified warning letter this does not apply if the sender could not recognise the lack of entitlement at the time.

An abusive warning letter is also inadmissible (§ 8c UWG). The law names indications of abuse, for example if it mainly serves to generate claims for costs or contractual penalties, if a competitor issues warnings for a considerable number of similar infringements out of proportion to its own business, if the value in dispute is set unreasonably high or if the requested cease-and-desist obligation clearly goes beyond the infringement. In the case of abuse, you can claim reimbursement of your defence costs.

Further limits apply to competitors. For infringements of statutory information and labelling duties in e-commerce, they cannot claim reimbursement of expenses (§ 13(4) UWG). If you usually employ fewer than 100 people, no contractual penalty may be agreed in these cases on a first warning letter from a competitor (§ 13a(2) UWG). Whether, for example, missing information under Annex 3 BFSG falls under these rules is a question for a lawyer’s review.

How to respond step by step

1. 1Note immediately when the warning letter arrived and which deadlines it sets.
2. 2Do not ignore the warning letter. Without a response, the sender can take legal action, including summary proceedings under § 12 UWG, which can cause additional costs.
3. 3Check who is sending the warning and whether the mandatory information under § 13(2) UWG is complete. You can check with the German Federal Office of Justice whether an association is on the list of qualified trade associations or qualified consumer associations.
4. 4Do not sign the enclosed cease-and-desist declaration unchanged and unchecked. It may go further than the specific infringement and binds you permanently with a contractual penalty.
5. 5Have the warning letter reviewed by a lawyer experienced in German competition law before you pay, sign or respond on the merits.
6. 6Check objectively whether your offer falls under the BFSG at all (consumer focus, type of service, micro-enterprise) and whether the barriers described can be reproduced.
7. 7Fix actual barriers promptly and document the state before and after, with the date, the pages concerned and the test method.
8. 8Provide or update the information under Annex 3 BFSG and set up an easy-to-reach contact channel for reporting barriers. The BFSG does not require businesses to have a feedback mechanism like the one for public sector bodies, but it helps you learn about problems early.
9. 9If you find that your service does not meet the requirements, § 14(4) BFSG requires corrective measures and that you inform the market surveillance authority without delay. Coordinate this step with your legal adviser.

How to lower the risk

• Classification: record in writing whether and why your offer falls under the BFSG, including consumer focus and company size. The free self-check “Am I affected by the BFSG?” among the Accessonaut tools helps you get started.
• Testing: test important pages and the whole journey up to the conclusion of the contract, automatically and manually, including with a keyboard and a screen reader.
• Fixes: fix barriers in the code and in the content. Start with everything that prevents ordering, signing up or paying. For e-commerce, § 19 BFSGV expressly names identification, authentication, security and payment functions.
• Information: publish the accessibility information under Annex 3 in a clearly perceptible place, for example via an “Accessibility” link in the footer, and name the competent market surveillance authority.
• Documentation: keep test reports, fixes and dates in a traceable way. If you rely on a fundamental alteration or a disproportionate burden, §§ 16 and 17 BFSG require a documented assessment.
• Repetition: test again after a relaunch, new plugins, a new payment provider or design changes. Under § 14(3) BFSG, the requirements must be met at all times.

What testing tools and widgets cannot do

Automated testing tools find only some of the possible barriers. A good scan result, a seal without a traceable audit or an installed overlay widget does not prove conformity with the BFSG and the BFSGV. A widget can offer personal reading aids, but it does not replace fixing barriers in the code and in your content.

This also applies to Accessonaut: the free BFSG check shows the automatically detectable barriers on a page and helps you prioritise. It is not proof of accessibility. This article offers initial guidance and is not legal advice. If you receive a warning letter or a letter from an authority, you need an individual legal review.