Recommendations of the editorial team
Eventim will have to advertise his ticket insurance differently in the future. This emerges from a judgment of the Bamberg Higher Regional Court. This was partially carried out by consumer advocates. The consumer advice center had complained that Eventim would violate the Digital Service Act of the European Union on his own website with the repeated offer of his ticket insurance on his own website and thus at the same time against competition law.
What was specifically criticized? If the ticket insurance is not booked during the ordering process, Eventim again points to the insurance company with another opening window and recommends a conclusion to avoid “anger and frustration via a missed event”. According to the consumer advocates, this is manipulative, also because the visual design towards the other offer decreases. This would put pressure on consumers.
For the rejection of ticket insurance, even the actuation of the selection button “I wear the full risk” is necessary. A misleading, as the court now stated. The impression is given that the money for non -insured tickets is definitely lost if a visit to the event cannot take place. But there is money back when an appearance of bands or artists is canceled: inside. Eventim’s procedure contradicts the legal situation on this point, i.e. the Digital Service Act of the European Union, according to the court in its judgment.
Use Eventim Design tricks?
In this context, the consumer advice center speaks of so -called Dark Patterns, i.e. design tricks that are supposed to encourage buying decisions. These are to be prevented with the digital service Act, but are still a nuisance on the Internet on many websites.
Eventim contradicted the court: The additional window only serves that customers could not overlook the offer, announced: inside could see that it was a non -binding offer. The court saw it differently, but emphasized in his judgment that the general offer of ticket insurance could also be objected to in the form shown (i.e. during the ordinary sales process). It is clear, according to the Bamberg Higher Regional Court in its judgment that it was only a purchase option and no compulsion.
However, this does not apply to the subsequent window and the corresponding rhetoric (“I bear the full risk”) in connection with a reference to a legal point that the purchase price could be completely lost without insurance.
The judgment is not yet final. It was already felled on February 5th, But only now made public by the consumer center.