The court held that the calling of customers constituted unwanted solicitations pursuant to § 7 UWG. The defendant did not provide sufficient evidence for the consumer's valid consent to such calls as from the evidence provided the participation in the raffle could not be proven. Neither the mere templates nor the lists with IP numbers suffice to prove an explicit consent of the customers, the court held. A required print-out of a confirmation mail sent from the witnesses' email accounts was not presented as evidence by the defendant. The court holds that the defendant carries the burden of proof with regard to the consumer's consent. However, even if a confirmation email from the consumer's account would have been sent, the consumer can still claim that he was not the sender in the particular case. For such arguments he carries the burden to provide sufficient evidence.
Within the judgment the court also stated that the wording of the claim for cease-and-desist was sufficiently precise even though it widely adapted the wording of the Act against Unfair Competition.
The court also held that the prohibition of unwanted solicitations (advertising calls) complies with provisions as set out in Directive 2005/29/EC.