{"id":28052,"date":"2025-08-15T11:55:44","date_gmt":"2025-08-15T09:55:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/avantcore.de\/?p=28052"},"modified":"2025-10-07T13:28:10","modified_gmt":"2025-10-07T11:28:10","slug":"before-and-after-advertising-hyaluron-botox-ban-bgh-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/avantcore.de\/en\/before-and-after-advertising-hyaluron-botox-ban-bgh-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Before-and-after advertising for hyaluronic acid & Botox prohibited - BGH sets strict limits for practices"},"content":{"rendered":"

Before and after images for aesthetic treatments such as hyaluronic acid or hyaluronidase injections are not permitted outside specialist circles. With much attention Judgment of July 31, 2025 (Ref. I ZR 170\/24)<\/a> the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made a groundbreaking decision for the aesthetics and beauty industry.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

The trick: minimally invasive injection treatments without a scalpel are also considered \"surgical plastic surgery procedures\" within the meaning of the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act (HWG). They are therefore subject to the strict advertising restrictions of Section 11 HWG. The ruling affects not only doctors, but also alternative practitioners, beauticians and anyone who publicly advertises aesthetic filler or Botox offers.<\/p>\r\n

<\/p>\r\n

What was it about?<\/strong><\/h6>\r\n

The defendant runs a practice for aesthetic facial treatments. The services offered include Lip shaping<\/strong>, Nose correction (\"liquid rhinoplasty\") and chin augmentation<\/strong> by means of Hyaluronic fillers<\/strong>. Treatments with Hyaluronidase<\/strong> (to break down hyaluronic acid) and botulinum toxin (Botox) are offered. The practice's Instagram account has published several series of images showing patients \"before\"<\/strong> and \"to\"<\/strong> of the treatment. These comparisons were intended to emphasize the visual improvement.<\/p>\r\n

The plaintiff, a qualified consumer association pursuant to Section 4 UKlaG, saw this as a clear violation of Section 11 (1) sentence 3 no. 1 HWG. It issued a warning letter to the practice and demanded an injunction and reimbursement of the warning costs. As the practice refused, the association took the matter to court.<\/p>\r\n

Special feature: In actions under the German Injunctions Act (UKlaG), the court of first instance is not the Regional Court, but the Higher Regional Court. The OLG Hamm<\/strong> upheld the action in its entirety and prohibited the practice from using such before-and-after images. It also ordered the defendant to pay the warning costs plus interest. The appeal allowed by the OLG was unsuccessful before the BGH.<\/p>\r\n

The legal considerations of the BGH in detail<\/strong><\/h6>\r\n

1. procedural starting position<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

Pursuant to Section 6 (2) UKlaG, an appeal on points of law against judgments of the higher regional courts of first instance is admissible if - as here - claims under the UKlaG are at issue. Consumer protection laws within the meaning of Section 2 (2) No. 6 UKlaG also include the provisions of the German Drug Advertising Act (Sections 3-13 HWG). The plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was therefore based directly on Section 2 (1) UKlaG in conjunction with Section 11 HWG.<\/p>\r\n

2. advertising ban of \u00a7 11 para. 1 sentence 3 no. 1 HWG<\/strong><\/p>\r\n

According to this provision, for surgical plastic surgery procedures within the meaning of Section 1 para. 1 no. 2 c HWG outside the professional circles<\/strong> with the effect of such a treatment by comparing the condition of the body before and after the procedure<\/strong> be advertised.<\/p>\r\n

So the decisive factor is:<\/p>\r\n