Germany: four years of cancellation buttons – status quo and new developments

Since the enactment of the Fair Consumer Contracts Act in 2022, which mandated the inclusion of a cancellation button for evergreen agreements on websites in Germany (also known as the “2-click cancellation law”), there has been a lot of attention by German Consumer Protection Associations (CPA) and a notable impact on businesses. Within just a month of the law coming into force, German courts began issuing preliminary injunctions against arguably allegedly non-compliant websites. In 2023, CPA launched an industry-wide campaign to alert and warn about the absence or obscurity of these cancellation buttons. According to a CPA website, 20 percent of websites still fail to meet the requirements under German law.

Higher courts have published decisions on the cancellation button, setting precedents for compliance with the German law and broadening its scope even further. Most of the rulings apply a very strict standard, which seems to disregard today’s consumers’ capabilities to cancel online as well as the impact on businesses.

This article aims to provide a quick update on the specifics (under A.). Meanwhile, the EU has rolled out a new mandatory withdrawal function for B2C distance contracts under EU Directive 2023/2673, which the article will also briefly cover (under B.).

A. Update on the German “2-click cancellation law”

1. Legal requirements

Whenever consumers can conclude subscriptions against payment on a website, businesses should also allow consumers to terminate the subscription within “2 clicks”. The requirements can be summarized:

• 1st click on Cancellation button: The website must include a prominently, permanently available and immediately and easily accessible button labeled “Cancel contracts here" or other unambiguous wording.
• 2nd click on detail page and “Cancel now” button: The cancellation button must lead directly to a form page where (i) the respective consumer is identified and (ii) can effectively submit the cancellation request by clicking on a button labeled "Cancel now". Following that, (iii) the consumer must receive an electronic confirmation of the submission.

2. Overview of recent German case law on this statutory requirement

Against this background, the recent rulings regarding the 2-click cancellation law can be categorized as follows:

a. Enforceability of the 2-click cancellation law against EU service providers

• The 2-click cancellation law is both enforceable and not precluded by EU law, as its requirements on contract termination operate outside the fully harmonized scope of the EU Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), which only covers pre-contractual information, contract conclusion, and withdrawal rights (Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf, decision of 23 May 2024 - 20 Ukl 3/23; Regional Court of Karlsruhe, decision of 15 January 2026 - 13 O 25/25 KfH). However, since the German law is not based on EU standards, its long-term resilience remains uncertain, particularly as EU law continues to develop in the area of digital consumer protection.
• Furthermore, the Regional Court of Karlsruhe explicitly allows the cancellation button to apply even to digital service providers established in other EU member states. This wide application increases compliance burdens for cross-border providers and leaves open questions regarding the ultimate limits of national enforcement, which may be subject to future challenge or shifts in legislative approach.
  

b. No additional exceptions to cancellation button requirement

• The obligation to provide a cancellation button also applies for subscriptions such as for cooking boxes, alcohol, newspapers, or computer software according to the Regional Court of Berlin (decision of 16 March 2023 - 52 O 333/22). Exceptions as set out for such contracts under EU consumer protection law do not apply except for cancellations with strict formal requirements such as termination of employment contracts and financial services.
• Based on leading German case law, companies must provide a cancellation button on their website even if the consumer only must pay a one-off fee and the contract ends automatically after the agreed term (Federal Court of Justice, decision of 22 May 2025 – I ZR 161/24). This broadens the scope significantly.
  
   

c. Cancellation button specifics

• Easy to read: In principle, cancellations must be as easy as the conclusion of a contract, according to the court (Higher Regional Court of Munich, decision of 20 March 2025 – 6 U 4336/23). However, this does not mean that the button for concluding the contract and the cancellation button must be designed in the same way. This would disproportionately restrict the freedom of design for businesses, without there being sufficient grounds for this in the text of the law. Therefore, the only important aspect is whether the cancellation button – viewed in isolation – is easily legible.
• Direct and easy access: Surprisingly, in contrast to the “2-click away rule” as established by leading German case law for imprints does not apply. The court determined that the cancellation button must not be hidden under a large number of other links (Higher Regional Court of Munich, decision of 20 March 2025 – 6 U 4336/23 e).
• Two-step cancellation procedure: After clicking on the cancellation button, the customer must be forwarded directly to the confirmation page in order to complete the cancellation process by clicking on the "Cancel now” button. In contrast to that, a three-step cancellation process does not align with the German legislator's intention to make termination as simple as possible (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 23 May 2024 - 20 UKl 3/23). The court, however, granted to leave appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, noting the absence of supreme court case law on Sec. 312k of the German Civil Code (BGB).

d. Design of the cancellation page

• Other elements permitted on the cancellation form page: Elements on the confirmation page that refer to a "hotline", "offers" or "Sorry to see you go” (i.e. double checking nudges) are generally permitted provided that the confirmation page is easily accessible. Since consumers assumingly pay more attention during a cancellation process because of the respective importance, the court determines that consumers are less likely to be distracted from the actual cancellation process by nudges (Regional Court of Frankfurt, decision of 30 August 2023 - 2-06 O 411/22; also confirmed by the Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf, decision of 18 September 2025 – 20 UKl 1/25).
• No dark patterns: However, dark patterns are prohibited. This is the case if the information significantly impairs the cancellation flow (Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf, decision of 18 September 2025 – 20 UKl 1/25). For example, the court prohibited providing an “alternative cancellation assistant” which was more prominent than the cancellation button. In addition, referring to the notice of termination as a “request for termination” and mentioning a subsequent “review of the order” were deemed misleading. According to the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein, this wording falsely suggests that the validity of the termination depends on the provider’s consent (decision of 04. März 2026 - 6 U 42/25). The same applies if an error message appears after clicking the cancellation button (“Oh, sorry, that didn’t work”) without there being an internet connection issue on the customer’s end.
  

Note: Based on court rulings, the DSA requirements on “dark patterns” can be taken into account when assessing the design of confirmation pages, even if they are not directly applicable. This is highly questionable, because the DSA is, first and foremost, clearly defined in its scope and cannot be applied as a general principle. Read more about the DSA and dark patterns here

e. Authentication

• No excessive authentication requirements: To prevent fraudulent activities, it may be permissible and even necessary to ask consumers for confirmation after they have submitted their cancellation request for authentication purposes. This generally includes details about first name, surname, e-mail address, and customer contract number. Whether additional information may be asked depends on the respective service and can only be answered on a case-by-case basis. Courts consider further information or confirmation of cancellation by telephone usually as a limit and thus an infringement of the law (Regional Court Koblenz, decision of February 27, 2024 - 11 O 12/23).
• No password request: According to some courts, password confirmations create a hurdle that will likely prevent a consumer from cancelling. The reason is that consumers may not always have access to their password (Higher Regional Court of Berlin, decision of 12 November 2025 – 5 U 6/25; similar: Regional Court of Munich, decision of 9 January 2026 – 3 HK O 13796/24 and Cologne, decision of 29 July 2022 - 33 O 355/22). However, this is questionable as it seems that the court did not reasonably consider that consumers can usually easily reset their passwords. Hence, it could be argued that it is easy and market standard for consumers to enter their password, and this should not qualify as a “hurdle” for consumers. This is also the opinion of the Higher Court of Nuremberg (decision of 30 July 2024 – 3 U 2214/23). However, until we have further case law in this regard, the issue remains a grey area. 
  

f. Permissible cancellation alternatives

• Additional cancellation options permitted: Businesses are not restricted from providing alternative cancellation options such as cancellation assistants as long as consumers do not assume that they must use them (Higher Regional Court of Koblenz, decision of 19 September 2024 – 2 U 437/23) ). According to the legal requirement of easy accessibility, this presupposes at least that both cancellation options are presented equally and can be noted at the same time. However, there is still a case pending at the Federal Court of Justice that is about the option to pause the subscription on the confirmation page (see press statement here).

g. Third party reseller

• Additional responsibilities for resellers: Resellers who offer subscriptions of the actual providers of the subscription must also ensure a cancellation button is also present on the provider's website, not just their own. This follows the court ruling, which dictates that resellers are accountable for ensuring compliance with this requirement, effectively treating the provider's website as an extension of their own sales platform (Higher Regional Court of Celle, decision of 18 April 2024 – 13 U 7/24).
  
  

3. Scope of the law under scrutiny

• Amidst ongoing debates, the term “website” for cancellation button requirements remains legally ambiguous. Some advocate a broad, technology-neutral interpretation that encompasses apps, but German case law has yet to clarify. Arguments persist for limiting the scope to traditional websites accessed through desktop and mobile browsers. Given this uncertainty and recent case law from the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf, decision of 8 February 2024 – 20 Ukl 4/23) — though not definitively addressing whether apps are included—we advise a tailored risk assessment for each business model. It is noteworthy that consumer protection agencies are beginning to scrutinize apps, expanding their vigilance beyond conventional websites.

4. Enforcement and consequences

In case of non-compliance with the requirements above,

• consumers may freely cancel their subscriptions without being bound by minimum terms or cancellation notice periods and
• businesses are exposed to warning letters and cease-and-desist claims (C&D) by CPAs and competitors, potentially followed by litigation if deciding to not sign the C&D.

B. Upcoming EU-wide withdrawal function

• In addition to the “2-click cancellation law” in Germany and the “3-click cancellation law” in France, EU legislators followed up with a similar solution for exercising the withdrawal right. From 19 June 2026, EU member states require a withdrawal function for distance contracts concluded by the means of an online interface (Art. 11a EU Directive 2023/2673). Germany has enacted the implementation law transposing the new Art. 11a CRD into national law on 5 February 2026.

• In a nutshell, businesses must comply with the following:
  • implement a right-of-withdrawal function which is similar to the requirements for the cancellation button above, and
  • implement a process to automatically confirm transmission and receipt of the declaration of withdrawal, including the time stamp.

• So far, there is no clarity regarding the design of the function, offering the function to customers that concluded the purchase as a “guest”, how to prevent fraudulent activities or to enable partial withdrawals. While this leaves businesses room for creativity, we expect a similar enforcement action by CPAs as we have seen for the 2-click cancellation law.  Read more on the current legal developments for the eCommerce sector here.

C. Conclusion

While the rulings specify the requirements of the German “2-click cancellation law”, permissible design choices for the cancellation button and the confirmation page remain still unclear. Courts apply a very strict interpretation of the law and go in some cases well beyond what is necessary in terms of consumer protection. In particular, CPAs and courts should consider today’s average informed consumers capabilities of navigating through a cancellation process. While case law provides increasing clarity , many questions of definition and interpretation remain unresolved. In terms of the prospective withdrawal button, businesses will face similar difficulties.