GER: Online Dating Contracts Are Enforceable and Can’t Just Be Cancelled

Aug 8, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The process of cancelling a premium membership with an online dating agency may not always be as simple as clicking a button. The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter BGH) has reviewed issues related to special termination rights and automatic contract renewal clauses in a representative case.

In the case at hand, the defendant runs an online dating site offering free basic and paid premium memberships. Premium membership contracts are available for six, 12, or 24 months at the following standard fees:

·      6 months: EUR 479.40 (EUR 79.90/month)

·      12 months: EUR 790.80 (EUR 65.90/month)

·      24 months: EUR 1,101.60 (EUR 45.90/month)

The premium membership contracts contained extension clauses in their general terms and conditions. According to these clauses, contracts are automatically renewed for twelve months unless the customer gives notice of termination at least twelve weeks before the end of the initial term.

No right to termination under Section 627 (1) of the BGB

The BGH rejected the applicability of a special right of termination at any time under Section 627(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB). The Court reasoned that the nature of the service relationship referenced by Section 627(1) of the BGB did not support such a right. The provider’s services were determined not to be classified as a personally rendered service under Section 627(1) of the BGB, but rather as an automated brokerage system with its principal purpose being to facilitate access to an online database utilizing algorithmic matching, without establishing a personal, trust-based relationship.

Contract extension does not apply to short-term agreements

The BGH adopted a nuanced perspective regarding the enforceability of contract extension clauses. It determined that such provisions do not constitute an undue disadvantage in contracts with initial terms of 12 or 24 months. However, the Court found the clause invalid within the context of a six-month contract. This decision was based on the conclusion that automatic extension imposes a financial obligation disproportionate to the original term—particularly since the monthly fee during the extension period exceeds that of the initial contract duration.

Press Release No. 137/2025 zu BGH III ZR 388/23