LIFE SCIENCES LAW - Ralph Schäfer – Lawyer - Your expert for legal issues in the life sciences sector

Advertising for medical cannabis: Federal Court of Justice limits internet portals

Technical article on medical device law

The Federal Court of Justice ruled on March 26, 2026: Anyone who advertises cannabis treatments on the internet and refers patients to doctors is acting unlawfully.

Increasingly, internet portals are connecting patients with doctors who prescribe medical cannabis. While practically effective, this entails legal risks. In a landmark decision, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now clarified where the boundary lies (Case No. I ZR 74/25). Conclusion: Such portals should not be allowed to advertise cannabis treatments without hindrance. The German law on advertising of medicinal products sets clear limits for them.

Medical cannabis on prescription: What you should know

Since 2017, doctors in Germany have been allowed to prescribe medical cannabis. The legal basis for this is Section 3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG). It is therefore not a prohibited narcotic, but a regular medicine – which, however, is only available with a prescription.

Cannabis is used, among other things, for chronic pain, muscle spasms resulting from multiple sclerosis, and severe nausea during chemotherapy. The treating physician alone decides which patients actually receive a prescription.

And that's exactly what matters: Because cannabis prescription required For this drug, particularly strict regulations apply to advertising. As with other prescription medications, public, one-sided advertising is not permitted.

Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decision of March 26, 2026: What was it about?

At the heart of the ruling is the Frankfurt-based company Bloomwell. The portal approached patients online and offered them the option of obtaining a cannabis prescription from a doctor. Bloomwell received a commission from the doctors for each successful referral.

Bloomwell did not consider this advertising and claimed it was merely providing information about a treatment option – comparable to an advice article. The competition authority, however, disagreed and filed a lawsuit.

Initially, the Frankfurt Regional Court ruled in favor of Bloomwell (Judgment of February 24, 2024, Case No. 3-08 O 540/23). The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court subsequently ruled differently and prohibited certain areas of the portal (Judgment of March 6, 2025, Case No. U 74/24). The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now upheld this decision (Judgment of March 26, 2026, Case No. I ZR 74/25): Bloomwell's conduct constitutes unlawful advertising.

Why is this considered advertising? This is how the German law on advertising of medicinal products defines it.

The German Medicines Advertising Act (HWG) stipulates the conditions under which advertising for medicinal products is permitted.

The central regulation for prescription drugs can be found in Section 10 Paragraph 1 of the German Advertising Act for Medicinal Products (HWG): Advertising for prescription drugs must not be directed at the general public.

It is only permissible for use by doctors, pharmacists and similar professionals.

The reason is simple: people should not be induced by advertising to ask their doctor for a specific medication.

The prescription should be based solely on medical reasons and not on the basis of an advertisement.

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) saw precisely this danger in the Bloomwell portal: The website exclusively presented the advantages of cannabis and concealed risks and contraindications.

According to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), this could lead to patients pressuring their doctor to prescribe medication – even if it was not medically indicated.

If you are unsure whether your website or marketing complies with the requirements of the German Advertising Act (HWG), you should have this checked by a lawyer at an early stage – before you receive a warning letter.

No product name required: When does a presentation count as advertising for cannabis?

A common misconception: Many people assume that advertising within the meaning of the German Medicines Advertising Act (HWG) only occurs when a specific product – such as a particular manufacturer or product name – is being advertised. This is incorrect.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now clarified that even general advertising for an entire form of treatment – for example, "cannabis as a pain reliever" – can violate the advertising ban. The decisive factor is not whether a name is mentioned. Rather, the crucial question is whether the presentation could mislead consumers into requesting a specific prescription medication.

This is a crucial clarification. It applies. not just for cannabis, but generally for all prescription drugs. Anyone who advertises unilaterally for a specific group of active ingredients is acting just as unlawfully as someone who advertises a particular drug.

For operators of health portals, apps or patient referral platforms, this means: The choice of words on the website must be chosen and checked with particular care.

Remote treatment via the internet: The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) refers a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

On the same day, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) also initiated another case with significant European implications. A different company offers medical advice online – for example, regarding erectile dysfunction. Patients fill out a questionnaire online and then receive an "online diagnosis" from a doctor based in Ireland. This doctor then immediately prescribes the appropriate medication.

This is fundamentally problematic in Germany. Section 9 of the German Advertising Act for Medicinal Products (HWG) prohibits advertising for such remote treatments unless they meet German medical standards.

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), however, doubts whether this prohibition is compatible with European law. Within the EU, the freedom to provide services applies: doctors from other member states are generally permitted to practice in Germany. Therefore, the BGH has referred the question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (Case No. I ZR 118/24). The ECJ's decision could have far-reaching consequences for online medical services throughout Europe.

Anyone who operates or plans to operate a business model involving cross-border telemedicine should closely follow this development – and have their own offering legally assessed by a lawyer now.

In which cases is legal advice advisable when advertising medical cannabis?

The BGH ruling is not only directed against large platforms like Bloomwell, but is also a warning to all players in the digital health sector: medical practices with an online presence, health portals, telemedicine apps and also companies that market products or treatments related to prescription drugs.

The line between permissible information and impermissible advertising is not always easy to discern.

Objective, balanced information about a treatment option may be permitted; however, a one-sided emphasis on the advantages – without mention of risks and without factual context – is not.

A warning letter for a violation of the HWG (German Act on Advertising in the Healthcare Sector) can entail considerable costs.

In addition to the costs for the opposing party's lawyer, cease-and-desist declarations with high contractual penalties are a threat.

Anyone who has received such a warning letter or is unsure whether their website meets legal requirements should seek help from a lawyer as soon as possible.

Conclusion: Cannabis advertising and the German Medicines Advertising Act (HWG) – the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has drawn clear boundaries.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 26, 2026, while not surprising, provides significant clarity. Internet portals seeking to attract patients for cannabis treatments must comply with the regulations of the German Act on Advertising of Therapeutic Products (Heilmittelwerbegesetz). Simply refraining from mentioning a specific product is insufficient. Even those who unilaterally promote a single treatment method can still violate Section 10 of the Act.

This is positive for patients: The decision as to whether cannabis is medically indicated is made by the treating physician – not by marketing.

For companies in the healthcare market, the message is clear: Anyone providing information about prescription drugs online or referring patients must design their website with care. Providers of cross-border telemedicine should closely follow the ECJ ruling in case I ZR 118/24.