Cold Email Germany: Is B2B Outreach Legal Under UWG Section 7?

Is B2B cold email legal in Germany?

Cold email to a German company is generally not allowed without the recipient's prior express consent, and that includes B2B. The rule is section 7 of the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG, the Unfair Competition Act). Its email provision speaks of the "addressee" and does not separate consumers from businesses. The one practical exception is the existing-customer rule in section 7(3).

Some guides say B2B cold email to Germany is fine on "legitimate interest". This guide tests that claim against the statute, the courts and the data protection authorities. FoxKnock sells outbound tooling, so read the primary sources listed at the end instead of trusting our summary. German sales teams call the topic Kaltakquise (cold acquisition).

What UWG section 7 says about email advertising

Section 7(2) lists cases of unreasonable nuisance that are always assumed. Number 2 is the email rule (text read on gesetze-im-internet.de on 17 October 2026):

bei Werbung unter Verwendung einer automatischen Anrufmaschine, eines Faxgerätes oder elektronischer Post, ohne dass eine vorherige ausdrückliche Einwilligung des Adressaten vorliegt

Our translation: advertising using an automatic calling machine, a fax machine or electronic mail, without the addressee's prior express consent.

"Always assumed" matters. In a 2009 ruling on the earlier wording, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) said there is no weighing of interests and no minor-violation defense once the rule applies.

Section 7(3) is the exception. Our translation of its four conditions, which must all be met:

1. A business obtained the customer's email address in connection with selling a product or service to that customer.
2. It uses the address to advertise its own similar products or services.
3. The customer has not objected.
4. The customer was clearly told, when the address was collected and at every use, that they can object at any time at no cost beyond basic transmission rates.

Section 7(2) no. 3 adds duties on top: no concealed sender, no breach of section 6(1) of the Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG), and a valid address for asking the messages to stop. They do not replace consent.

One research trap: until 28 May 2022 the email rule was no. 3 and the phone rule no. 2. Older rulings and some newer chamber pages cite the old numbers.

Why B2B is not an exception

The email rule protects the addressee ("Adressat"), not just the consumer. Compare no. 1 on phone calls: a consumer must have given prior express consent, but another market participant needs only at least presumed consent. The legislature drew a business line in the phone rule and left it out of the email rule.

Courts and chambers read it that way:

• BGH, 10 December 2009 (I ZR 201/07). One car dealer emailed its monthly offer to another dealer it had never dealt with. The Court held that unsolicited email advertising needs consent even between businesses, with no weighing of interests (some commentators had argued for one). It noted that the ePrivacy Directive (Article 13(5)) leaves member states room to protect businesses less, and that Germany had not used it. Caveats: this was a short cost decision after both sides declared the case settled because the law had been reworded, and it applied the older wording, which also accepted implied consent. The current text says prior express consent.
• BGH, 20 May 2009 (I ZR 218/07, "E-Mail-Werbung II"). One unsolicited advertising email to a law firm can already be an unlawful interference with its business. The sender had emailed an investor newsletter and argued it was not advertising; the Court held that presenting its business to the recipient was. The BGH sided with the recipient after courts had split. The claim was justified under civil law (sections 823 and 1004 BGB), not under UWG, because the parties were not competitors. This was also a cost decision, after the law firm was dissolved during the appeal.
• Chamber guidance. IHK München says the law does not distinguish between B2B and B2C for email and that there is no B2B exception. IHK Aachen (June 2024) says email advertising needs prior consent, that an address on a letterhead or business card is not consent, that an opt-out line does not create consent, and that the sender must prove consent.
• Published addresses. In I ZR 201/07 the recipient's website invited emails about its used-car sales to end buyers. The lower court found that this was not consent to a dealer's trade offer, and the BGH saw no legal error. IHK München says an address in a website imprint is not consent either.

Where sources disagree

Guides do not agree, and one vendor's two pages differ. Overloop's German-language guide (header: last updated May 2026) says B2B cold email is allowed under narrow conditions, including legitimate interest and a clear opt-out. Its English guide to Germany (last updated 15 May 2026) says section 7(2) no. 2 generally requires prior express consent, B2B included. We found no German statute, BGH decision or chamber guidance that exempts B2B email.

Does GDPR legitimate interest allow B2B cold email?

Not for the email itself, say the German data protection authorities. Two layers answer two questions. UWG section 7 is how Germany implements Article 13 of the ePrivacy Directive, and it decides whether you may use email to advertise at all. GDPR decides whether and how you may handle the personal data. Our GDPR and cold email guide covers the second layer.

A work address such as firstname.lastname@company.de usually identifies a person, so GDPR applies. If you did not get the address from that person, Article 14 requires you to give them privacy information, including the source of their data, within one month, and no later than your first message to them if you use the data to contact them. Under Article 21(2) to (4), anyone can object to direct marketing, and the right must be flagged at first contact, clearly and separately.

The legitimate-interest argument comes from recital 47, which says direct marketing "may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest" but asks for a careful assessment.

The German data protection authorities answer it in joint guidance (the DSK Orientierungshilfe, February 2022): UWG's value judgments feed into the legitimate-interest balance, so if UWG does not allow a contact channel, there is no legitimate interest to rely on. IHK München says the same: legitimate interest exists only if the UWG rules are met.

On 13 November 2025 the EU's Court of Justice added a related point (Inteligo Media, C-654/23). Where a sender uses the existing-customer exception in ePrivacy Article 13(2), the lawfulness conditions in GDPR Article 6(1) do not apply (via GDPR Article 95), because the ePrivacy rule is the specific one. The case concerns that exception, not cold email to businesses. Our reading: it points the same way, because the email-specific rule leads.

Existing customers and free accounts

Existing customers are the one practical exception, and section 7(3) is narrow:

• A customer, not a lead. The text requires that you got the address in connection with a sale. Someone who downloaded a guide, replied "interested" or booked a demo has not bought anything. The CJEU reads "sale" as a transaction that involves payment, which can be indirect.
• Similar products, notice every time. Only your own similar products, and the objection notice has to appear when you collect the address and in every message.
• You carry the proof. Courts put the burden of proving consent on the sender (OLG Hamburg, cited by IHK Aachen), and the DSK says you must prove customer status.

Free accounts are the open question. In Inteligo Media the Court treated a free account with a paid tier above it as the context of a sale, because the free service was paid for indirectly through the paid content, subject to checks by the referring court. We found no German court decision applying that to section 7(3) as of 17 October 2026, and readings differ on how far it reaches: IHK München says the ruling brings no relief for email advertising, while one lawyer's commentary (anwalt.de, November 2025) says it widens the room for existing-customer advertising. For free-tier sign-ups, treat section 7(3) as untested and get consent.

Kaltakquise per E-Mail (B2B): what you can do instead

Consent comes first. The other routes have their own rules:

On social messages, a May 2023 notice from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (18 U 154/22, a real-estate portal case) said that messages through services such as Xing, Facebook, LinkedIn and WhatsApp are electronic mail under the old no. 3, now no. 2. That was reasoning in a notice that the court intended to dismiss an appeal, not a final ruling, and the appeal was later withdrawn.

A Düsseldorf local court held in November 2025 (AG Düsseldorf, 23 C 120/25, headnote) that being connected on LinkedIn does not by itself amount to express consent to email advertising. Do not treat LinkedIn as a loophole.

What happens if you send anyway

The risk is civil more than administrative. UWG section 20 sets fines of up to 300,000 euros for unsolicited phone or automatic-call advertising to consumers and up to 50,000 euros for failing to document a consumer's phone consent (section 7a). Email is not on that list. GDPR fines are a separate matter. Section 33(1) DDG also makes it an administrative offense to disguise the sender or the commercial nature of a commercial email on purpose, with fines of up to 300,000 euros (section 33(6)).

• Who can claim (section 8(3)). Competitors that trade to a not insignificant extent and not only occasionally, qualified business and consumer associations, and chambers such as the IHK. A recipient that is not a competitor can still sue under civil law, the basis the BGH accepted for the law firm in I ZR 218/07.
• What arrives. An Abmahnung (formal warning letter) names who is warning you, why they may, what you did and whether they claim costs (section 13(2)). If it is justified and meets those requirements, you reimburse the necessary expenses (section 13(3)). The cost exclusion in section 13(4) applies to competitor claims over certain online information-duty breaches and over other GDPR and BDSG violations by businesses with fewer than 250 employees. It does not name the consent rule in section 7(2) no. 2.
• What follows. IHK Aachen describes a deadline of a few days to sign a cease-and-desist declaration with a contractual penalty, regularly several thousand euros if you breach it again. If there is no settlement, the claimant can go to court. First instance is a Landgericht, where lawyers are mandatory and values in dispute regularly exceed 5,000 euros. For scale, the BGH set the value of the appeal at 25,000 euros in I ZR 201/07 and 6,000 euros in I ZR 218/07.
• What nobody knows. We found no source measuring how often B2B cold email draws an Abmahnung. Overloop's German guide says warning letters start from 1,500 euros without citing a source. Treat the risk as real but unmeasured.

Cold email in DACH: Austria and Switzerland

Austria: section 174(3) of the Telekommunikationsgesetz 2021 makes electronic mail, including SMS, for direct marketing unlawful without the recipient's prior consent, with no business carve-out in its text. Section 174(4) has an existing-customer exception with four conditions. The Austrian Economic Chamber (WKO) reads it the same way and says published contact details are not consent.

Switzerland: Article 3(1)(o) of the Swiss UWG makes it unfair to send mass advertising by telecommunication without first obtaining the customer's consent, naming the correct sender and pointing to an easy, free way to refuse, with a customer exception. The federal office BAKOM calls this an opt-in system. Whether a small, individually written sequence counts as mass advertising is a question for Swiss counsel.

How FoxKnock handles this

FoxKnock's default country rule packs set Germany and Austria (and several other countries) to require a confirmed lawful basis. Until one is recorded on the contact, enrollment and sending are blocked. A contact whose country cannot be determined is blocked too, until you set a country or a basis. Suppression lists are checked again at send, emails carry a one-click unsubscribe and your postal address, first-touch emails carry your privacy-notice link by default, and by default every email waits for a person to approve it. The sending limits add daily caps and an automatic pause.

The limit matters: the pack checks that a basis is on record, not that it is the right one. Under the reading in this guide, recording legitimate interest would not make a German cold email lawful. FoxKnock forms can send a confirmation email (double opt-in) before a submission is researched or enrolled and record the confirmation as consent, but your consent wording is yours.

If you work from consented contacts or existing customers and want to see the country rules and the approval queue on your own list, you can start on the Free plan. It needs no card and includes 500 one-time credits once your email is verified. FoxKnock does not decide whether a message is lawful; that stays with you and your lawyer.

Not legal advice

This guide summarizes public sources read on 17 October 2026. It is not legal advice. Courts and authorities apply these rules case by case, they do not always agree, and the law changes. Before you run campaigns to Germany, Austria or Switzerland, ask a lawyer admitted there.