PREISmonitoring offers a range of functions as part of its Price Errors & Compliance service. This enables you to automatically monitor product listings on marketplaces for price errors and compliance with the GPSR and PAngV.
A single incorrect price or a missing mandatory detail can be enough to trigger warnings, fines or a legally enforceable obligation to supply. Instead of checking your listings manually, our system detects discrepancies in real time, documents them in a legally compliant manner and notifies you before any damage occurs.
PREISmonitoring offers the following functions as part of its price error and compliance service:
PREISmonitoring continuously compares your offers with the listing actually displayed on the marketplace and flags any discrepancies as soon as they arise – before customers place orders or market surveillance authorities take action.
The system automatically checks whether the mandatory information required under the GPSR is present – such as the manufacturer’s name, contact details, product identification and warning notices – and reports any missing information straight away.
PREISmonitoring automatically archives your price history and calculates the correct reference price in accordance with Section 11 of the PAngV over the prescribed 30-day period – as the basis for legally compliant crossed-out prices.
Rather than simply checking the data submitted by the user, PREISmonitoring monitors the listing as it actually appears in real time – including changes made by the marketplace itself, such as translations or formatting adjustments.
Any detected discrepancy is saved as a screenshot with a timestamp – as evidence in the event of disputes with marketplaces, competitors or regulatory authorities.
Monitoring can be extended to include competitors’ offers. This enables you to identify missing base prices or misleading ‘strikethrough’ prices used by competitors – providing a basis for taking legal action under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
You will be notified immediately of any discrepancy so that you can rectify it before it results in financial or legal consequences.
The General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) is an EU-wide product safety regulation that is directly applicable and came into force on 13 December 2024. It replaces the previous Product Safety Directive and, consequently, large parts of the German Product Safety Act (ProdSG). The GPSR applies to almost all non-food products in the EU internal market and imposes obligations on the entire supply chain – from the manufacturer through the importer to the retailer.
The following comparison highlights some of the key tightening of the GPSR compared with the previous legal situation:
| Previously (ProdSG) | Now (GPSR) | |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | National implementation | Directly applicable EU law |
| Information requirements | General obligation to provide information | Specific obligations directly in the online listing |
| Responsibility | Primarily manufacturers/importers | Explicitly also online retailers and marketplaces |
| Traceability | Basic requirements | Stricter documentation requirements throughout the supply chain |
| Market surveillance | National authorities, limited powers | EU-wide network of authorities, extended powers of intervention (including product recalls and sales bans) |
Breaches of the GPSR are not a trivial offence. Market surveillance authorities can impose heavy fines, order corrective measures or product recalls, and, in the worst-case scenario, block offers entirely.
The Price Indication Regulation (PAngV) forms the central legal framework for the presentation of prices to consumers in B2C business. Its provisions are intended to ensure price clarity and comparability. Breaches of the PAngV are not only anti-competitive but also a frequent cause of costly warning letters.
Correctly determining the reference price – the lowest price over the last 30 days – requires precise and comprehensive documentation of a retailer’s own price history. Just how controversial this issue is can be seen from a current case before the European Court of Justice concerning price advertising by the discount retailer Aldi: at its core, the case centres on whether the reference price was correctly stated in a discount promotion. The forthcoming ruling could further tighten the transparency requirements for price promotions across the entire sector.
An online retailer selling cat food via Google Shopping was successfully served with a warning letter for failing to state the statutory base price alongside the total price. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the legality of the warning letter on the basis of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) and set the value in dispute at €10,000 (Federal Court of Justice, judgement of 12 January 2023 – I ZR 111/22). The judgement makes it clear that even seemingly minor omissions in price labelling can have significant legal consequences.
A retailer was offering high-end smartphones for €92 instead of the usual €1,099. Despite the obvious error, the court ruled that the retailer had to supply nine of the devices at the reduced price (Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, 18 April 2024, Case No. 9 U 11/23). The decisive factor was not the pricing error itself, but the retailer’s subsequent conduct: by dispatching additional items that were part of the offer, the retailer had tacitly confirmed the contract of sale. A subsequent attempt to set aside the contract on the grounds of mistake was unsuccessful.
Online marketplaces often automatically adjust product descriptions – for example, through machine translation or changes to the format. The Hamburg Regional Court ruled that sellers are also liable for such automatically generated content, even if they did not create or commission it themselves (Hamburg Regional Court, judgement of 11 May 2023, ref. 327 O 188/22). Responsibility for the entire product listing, including all changes made by the marketplace, therefore lies with the retailer – merely checking the data they have submitted themselves is no longer sufficient.
Even outside the traditional online retail sector, it is evident just how strictly the courts interpret price transparency: The Cologne Regional Court declared the price increases implemented by the streaming provider Netflix between 2019 and 2022 to be invalid, because the relevant clause in the general terms and conditions permitted price increases but did not provide for the possibility of price reductions (Cologne Regional Court, judgement of 15 May 2025, Case No. 6 S 114/23). Although the judgement concerned a subscription-based business model, it sends a clear signal to the entire digital economy: price changes must be based on a transparent and legally sound foundation and must be documented in a comprehensible manner.
The Unfair Competition Act (UWG) applies to all market participants. Infringements by competitors – such as misleading ‘strikethrough’ prices, the systematic omission of base prices or failure to comply with product safety requirements – not only mislead consumers but also give the offender an unfair advantage over competitors who comply with the law.
Documented knowledge of infringements by competitors is valuable for two reasons:
“Retailers often underestimate how quickly a single pricing error can become a problem – not because they aren’t paying attention, but because they simply don’t see what’s actually being displayed on the marketplace. That’s exactly the gap we’re filling.”
Mahinoor Hemeda
Business Development Manager
