Higher Regional Court decides: Focus is allowed to sell doctors’ seals!

Higher Regional Court decides: Focus is allowed to sell doctors’ seals!

On May 22, 2025, the Munich Higher Regional Court decided that Focus magazine may charge doctors and clinics fees for the use of its “Top Doctor” and “Recommended Doctor in the Region” seals. This affects, among others, the Rems-Murr clinics, which actively use these licensed seals to advertise their chief physicians on their homepage. Under this agreement, the clinics pay a flat copyright fee to Focus to use the seals to compete for patients and highlight their quality.

However, the ruling calls into question the credibility of the awards. The Munich I Regional Court had previously decided on February 13, 2023 that the awarding of the “Doctors Seal” by Focus violated the law on misleading information. It is misleading because the design of the seal gives the impression of an objective examination by the medical profession, which actually does not take place. Doctors can obtain the seal for a fee of around 2,000 euros, raising concerns among consumers about the actual quality of medical services.

Misleading and consumer protection

The court noted that consumers could incorrectly assume that an impartial medical review had taken place, which was not the case. The quality of medical services cannot be objectively measured or compared. These findings raise questions about the ethical standards of media outlets that issue seals for a fee based on financial interests. The ruling is not yet final and could result in further legal action.

In the context of the increasing demand for quality-assured medical information, as demonstrated in various quality labeling initiatives, the topic becomes even more relevant. There is currently no global standard for evaluating medical information on the Internet. Initiatives such as the Health On the Net Foundation (HON) have been advocating for international standards since 1996, while the EU project MedCERTAIN has developed a three-tier certification model.

Role of quality standards

The German Society for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (GMDS) offers a catalog of quality criteria for electronic publications, while the American Medical Association (AMA) regularly develops adjustable quality criteria. A common goal of these initiatives is to create binding mechanisms for assessing and labeling the quality of medical information.

Essential components for quality assurance include criteria catalogs, evaluation procedures and independent testing bodies. The media literacy of users plays a crucial role in recognizing and evaluating high-quality information. However, voluntary self-control by providers and expert judgment are necessary to ensure the quality of the information in the long term.

In summary, the Higher Regional Court's ruling not only raises questions about the practicality of medical awards, but also about general transparency and ethics in the healthcare system. The development of accepted standards for medical information and its quality assessment will be crucial in the coming years in order not to further jeopardize patient trust.

For more information read the reports from ZVW, LTO and Medical Journal.