GER: Invalid Termination Clause in Streaming Voucher Cards

May 14, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter BGH) was required to determine the validity of a provision contained within the general terms and conditions of a streaming service provider.

The central question concerned the permissibility of a provision stipulating that termination would only take effect after all previously purchased credit had been exhausted. The matter was initiated by a consumer protection association, which argued that such a clause placed customers at an undue disadvantage.

Termination clause in the event of remaining credit

Alongside monthly subscription options, a streaming service provider offered prepaid voucher cards that allowed users to add credit to their accounts. The GT&Cs specified that membership termination would only occur after any remaining account credit had been fully utilized. A consumer protection association challenged this provision, alleging its unlawfulness and seeking an injunction to prohibit its continued use.

Unacceptable GT&Cs: Termination must not be contingent on any credit balance

The BGH determined that the contractual arrangement constituted a service contract rather than a tenancy agreement. This decision was based on the provider's ongoing delivery of services, rather than simply making the service accessible.

The clause in question was rendered invalid under Section 307(1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (Buergerliches Gesetzbuch, hereinafter BGB). It departs notably from the BGB’s statutory termination provisions, which permit termination at the end of any given month for contracts with monthly payments. In contrast, the contested clause may result in the effectiveness of termination being postponed for several years, depending on the remaining credit balance. This imposes a considerable disadvantage on customers by restricting their ability to terminate membership flexibly and later reactivate it using any remaining credit.

On the part of the provider, the BGH found no overriding interest worthy of protection. The objective of preventing outstanding balances over the long term does not, in itself, provide sufficient justification for imposing such a significant limitation on the right to terminate.

BGH III ZR 152/25 (16 April 2026)