A business model for brokering medical treatments with medicinal cannabis has been deemed anti-competitive by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main.

The extended legal possibilities to use medical cannabis and cannabis products for medical purposes or simply for individual consumption opens up new business models, which, however, do not always comply with regulatory requirements. One such business model has now been recognized by the OLG Frankfurt a.M. as anti-competitive viewed.

Medical cannabis

With Judgment of March 6, 2025 (Ref. 6 U 74/24) the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main clarified key issues of competition law in connection with the marketing of medical cannabis therapies by digital platform providers. The focus was on a service company that provided practice rooms and digital infrastructure for doctors, among other things. However, the company violated statutory advertising and professional regulations in several respects.

The defendant company was not itself a medical service provider, but offered a complete model. In this model, cooperating physicians were connected via the platform for a fee. The remuneration structure of the cooperation agreements provided for the company to claim between 60 % and 79 % of the gross medical fees for itself - differentiated according to initial and follow-up appointments (also via video consultation). It was also advertised that initial medical consultations could take place "on site or digitally". In addition, the websites advertised with statements such as "Natural medicine from the market leader", "Your experts for natural treatment" and "Algea Care patients". The advertising was aimed at medical laypersons.

Key statements of the judgment:

  • Inadmissible patient referral: The court considered the platform's remuneration regulations to be a payment for the referral of patients in breach of Section 31 MBO-Ä. The provider was classified as a participant in a breach of professional law by doctors and ordered to cease and desist (Sections 8, 3a UWG). The OLG qualified the remuneration structure as a referral fee contrary to professional law. The amount of the fee transferred to the company was no longer covered by services, but was to be regarded as remuneration for patient referrals. The court saw this as a clear violation of Section 31 MBO-Ä, according to which doctors may not be granted or promised remuneration for the referral of patients, either themselves or via third parties. Even if the platform itself is not a norm addressee of medical professional law, it was held liable under civil law as a participant (instigator or accomplice) within the meaning of Section 830 (2) BGB. The action was also deemed a violation of Section 3a UWG.
  • Violation of remote treatment advertising law: The statement that the initial medical consultation could take place "on site or digitally" was deemed to be a violation of the ban on advertising remote treatments under the German Therapeutic Products Advertising Act. Section 9 sentence 2 HWG does, under certain conditions, permit advertising for remote treatments - but only if they comply with generally recognized professional standards. The court clarified: For medical cannabis, which (at the time) was subject to narcotics law, an initial personal medical examination was mandatory. However, the advertising suggested a general permissibility of digital initial consultations without sufficient clarification - this was not sufficient in the opinion of the court.
  • Misleading advertising and lay advertising: Statements such as "natural medicine from the market leader" or "Algea Care patients" falsely suggested that the platform provider itself provided medical services. This is a violation of Section 5 UWG. The court also prohibited the advertising of prescription cannabis outside of specialist circles (Section 10 HWG). Although the defendant did not advertise a specific product, the overall presentation - including the visualization of cannabis flowers and promises of efficacy - was sufficient to constitute prohibited lay advertising.

Practical relevance not only for medical cannabis

The decision is an example of the legal limits that platform providers in the healthcare sector must observe. This applies in particular to business models that "dock" onto medical services and combine economic interests with medical publicity. The ruling is not only relevant for offers for new platforms that focus on a very topical issue such as medical cannabis, but also for more traditional medical approaches or offers. As there is considerable potential for attack, a lawyer should be advised by AVANTCORE RECHTSANWÄLTE as an expert should be involved in the planning of such a business model at an early stage.