Skip to content
PeekWellThe Handbook
Join now

What is an impressum? Trader identity on a website

At a glance

EU-14Mediume-Commerce Dir. Art. 5; CRD Art. 6(1)(b)-(d); DDG § 5, § 33(2)

Peeky looks for a page that says who runs the business, with a name, an address, a way to reach them and the register and tax numbers where they exist.

Last checked against the source:

I need to fix thisI need the rule

The rule

Article 5(1) of the e-Commerce Directive requires Member States to ensure that a service provider renders “easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities” at least: the provider’s name; the geographic address at which it is established; details “including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner”; the trade register and registration number where it is registered; the supervisory authority where the activity needs authorisation; professional-body details for regulated professions; and the VAT identification number where the activity is subject to VAT.

The Consumer Rights Directive adds a layer for consumer sales. Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must give “the identity of the trader, such as his trading name” and “the geographical address at which the trader is established as well as the trader’s telephone number and email address”, together with other online channels where the trader offers them, so that the consumer can “contact the trader quickly and communicate with him efficiently” (Art. 6(1)(b) and (c), in the text as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161). Article 6(1)(d) adds the address for complaints where it differs.

Both directives leave penalties to the Member States, which must make them “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” (e-Commerce Directive Art. 20, Consumer Rights Directive Art. 24). So the consequences differ by country.

In Germany the e-Commerce duty is in § 5 DDG, which the Act itself lists among the provisions that implement the directive. The Court of Justice has read the contact requirement in Case C-649/17: no duty to set up a telephone line or new email address in all circumstances, but a duty to show a means of direct and efficient contact clearly.

Section 5(1) DDG requires providers of commercial digital services, normally offered for payment, to keep certain information “leicht erkennbar und unmittelbar erreichbar” (easily recognisable and directly reachable) and “ständig verfügbar” (constantly available). The list includes the name and the address of establishment, plus for legal persons the legal form and the authorised representative; details allowing quick electronic contact, including an email address; the commercial register and number; and the VAT or economic identification number where the provider has one.

Two enforcement routes sit behind it. The first is public. Under § 33(2) No. 1 DDG, a § 5 disclosure that is not kept available, or is wrong or incomplete, is an administrative offence if done intentionally or negligently, and § 33(6) No. 3 sets a ceiling of EUR 50,000.

The second is private and is the one behind the reputation of the Impressum. Under § 3a UWG, acting against a rule that regulates market behaviour is unfair if it is capable of noticeably affecting the interests of consumers or rivals. Under § 8 UWG a rival who sells goods or services to a not insignificant extent, certain business associations and qualified consumer bodies can demand that it stop. Section 13(1) asks them to send a warning letter first (an Abmahnung) and offer a settlement with a contractual penalty. Under the current text, § 13(4) No. 1 excludes a rival’s claim for the cost of that letter where the matter concerns information duties in e-commerce or digital services. The claim to stop remains.

What PeekWell checks and how

EU-14 asks one question: can a visitor find out who runs this business from the public pages? The scan answers it from what the pages show, not from a register.

The scan is automated. It looks through your public pages for an imprint or legal-notice page and notes which identity details it shows: company name, address, register and VAT details, an email address and a phone number. Missing details are listed one by one. A German imprint page is expected from sites that target Germany or Austria. For other sites the scan expects the directive-level identity details only.

The scan has limits, and the report says so. It reads what’s on the public pages it visited. It can’t tell whether the address is where the business is really established, whether a register number is current, or whether a profession-specific line is required. A Passed means the expected details were observed on the pages scanned. It doesn’t say the site complies. The notice’s own content is checked in EU-08 and EU-09.

Why it matters for a company

This is one of the easiest gaps for an outsider to spot, because the only test is whether a page exists and what is on it.

In Hamm in 2011 a seller with a turnover of about EUR 694 over six weeks was treated as a trader, and the court found that giving no name or address went against § 5 TMG and ordered him to cover EUR 755.80 of a rival’s lawyer’s fees. A rival’s claim for the cost of that kind of letter is now excluded by § 13(4), but the court’s reading of the duty is the same one the DDG now carries. In Düsseldorf in 2013 a rival that traded in used road-building machinery obtained an order against a portal operator whose advertisement form let dealers publish offers without the exact company name with legal form, or the trade register and number. The order was backed by a possible fine of up to EUR 250,000 for each case of non-compliance with it.

The Amazon case shows that the content of the duty is argued too: a consumer federation took how amazon.de showed its phone number to the German federal court, and the answer came from the Court of Justice in 2019.

For a company the consequences are of three kinds. Anyone with a browser can find an imprint gap, including a rival looking for one. The remedy sought is usually to stop and to sign a settlement with a contractual penalty, which binds the company from then on. And a missing address is the first thing a customer with a complaint looks for.

Smaller companies and larger companies

The duty has no size threshold. A sole trader and a listed retailer owe the same information. Only the way it goes wrong differs.

In a small company the site is a template or a hosted shop. The imprint was copied from another site, or the business changed form and the page was never touched. Marketplace and social profiles are a second source: the shop page is complete, but the seller’s listing on a platform has no identity details at all, which is the pattern in the Hamm decision. Often nobody reads these pages, so a warning letter may be how the gap comes to light.

In a larger company the problem is spread out. Several brands, country sites and microsites each need their own details, the legal entity differs by market, and a footer template can be reused on a site that sells under another company’s name. Contact channels get replaced by chatbots and forms, which is the question the Amazon case tested: whether the means offered are direct and efficient and are clearly shown. Platform operators also face the question whether their listing forms prompt sellers for the details, which the Düsseldorf order turned on.

Enforcement cases

Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

The Officer, squinting at a file.

Larger companies

  • Online seller of quads and electronic devices

    Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany), 2009No fine; a rival's warning-letter costs upheld

    The imprint on the seller's offer pages gave no commercial register, no register number and no VAT identification number. The court held that these details are required by § 5 TMG (now DDG § 5), that leaving them out entirely is not a trivial matter because the register entry identifies the trader and shows that it exists, and upheld the rival's claim for the cost of its warning letter.

    Read the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) publication about Online seller of quads and electronic devices
  • Operator of a listings portal for construction machinery

    Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), 2013No fine; order to stop, backed by a possible penalty of up to €250,000 for each repeat

    A dealer in used road-building machinery sued the operator of a listings portal whose advertisement form let dealers publish offers without their exact company name and legal form, or their trade register and number. The court held that the operator had to prompt for these details in its form and terms of use or check the published listings, and ordered it to stop.

    Read the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) publication about Operator of a listings portal for construction machinery
  • deutsche internet versicherung AG

    Court of Justice of the EU (reference from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany), 2008No fine; court ruling

    The Federation of German Consumer Organisations sued an online-only car insurer whose site gave its postal and email addresses but no phone number, and offered an online enquiry form instead. The Court held that Article 5(1)(c) of the e-Commerce Directive requires, besides an email address, a second means of rapid, direct and effective contact before a contract is concluded. It need not be a phone number and may be an online enquiry form answered by email.

    Read the Court of Justice of the EU (reference from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) publication about deutsche internet versicherung AG
  • Amazon EU Sàrl

    Court of Justice of the EU (reference from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany), 2019No fine; court ruling

    The Federal Union of Consumer Organisations sued Amazon EU over amazon.de, saying it had not clearly given consumers a telephone and fax number and that its callback service took several steps. The Court held that the Consumer Rights Directive does not oblige a trader to open a phone line or a new email address in all circumstances, but does require a means of direct and efficient communication that is clearly shown. It added that a number reachable only after a series of clicks is not, in itself, unclear.

    Read the Court of Justice of the EU (reference from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) publication about Amazon EU Sàrl
  • Amazon SARL (email address in the amazon.de imprint)

    Kammergericht Berlin (Germany), on a claim by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv), 2026No fine; court order to stop (final)

    The email address given in the imprint of amazon.de answered messages with an automatic reply saying it did not accept incoming emails and telling customers to sign in to their account. The court held that the imprint email must allow quick contact and direct, efficient communication even when other channels exist, and prohibited naming an address through which no communication is possible.

    Read the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany), on a claim by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) publication about Amazon SARL (email address in the amazon.de imprint)

Smaller companies

  • Individual seller on an online auction platform

    Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany), 2011€755.80 in warning-letter costs

    A seller listed 552 items on an auction platform in about six weeks, sold 175 of them for a turnover of €693.66 and gave no provider identification or withdrawal information. The court treated him as a trader, found that giving no name or address went against § 5 TMG (the earlier home of today's DDG § 5) and ordered him to release the rival seller who had sent the warning letter from €755.80 in lawyer's fees.

    Read the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) publication about Individual seller on an online auction platform
  • Partnership selling on an online auction platform

    Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany), 2009No fine; the seller's challenge to a rival's warning letter dismissed

    A trading partnership filled the seller-information field on its auction listings with a wrong version of its trading name, so buyers could not tell clearly who the seller was. A correct imprint sat on a separate page reached by a link. The court held that the listings did not give the seller's identity and representative clearly and correctly, that the trader's identity is material information, and dismissed the partnership's claim that the rival's warning letter was unfounded.

    Read the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) publication about Partnership selling on an online auction platform
  • Sklep Sportowy MARATON s.c.

    Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), Wrocław branch (Poland), 2005No fine; decision recording a practice that had already stopped

    The authority checked 42 online sports-equipment shops. This shop's site gave no REGON business number and did not name the body that registered the business, alongside gaps in its withdrawal, complaint and price information. The authority found that the practice harmed the collective interests of consumers and recorded that it had stopped on 1 January 2005.

    Read the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), Wrocław branch (Poland) publication about Sklep Sportowy MARATON s.c.
  • Operator of farmacocoronavirus.it

    Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Italy), 2020No fine; interim order to suspend the site and block access to it

    The authority alleged that the site sold a drug as the only cure for COVID-19, gave no pre-contractual information on the seller's identity or the geographical address where it was established, and refused withdrawal more than 24 hours after an order. As an interim measure, while the case ran, it ordered access to the site blocked and its content suspended.

    Read the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Italy) publication about Operator of farmacocoronavirus.it
  • ByMètis Cancellations B.V. (by-metis.it)

    AGCM (Italy), 2024€10,000 for this practice (€20,000 in total)

    The AGCM found that the Italian-language site of a paid service for sending contract cancellation letters gave no clear and unambiguous information on where the company was established or who it was; the trader turned out to be a Dutch company that used an Italian address only for post. It treated this, together with how the service's price was shown, as one misleading practice, and fined a separate practice of aggressive payment reminders.

    Read the AGCM (Italy) publication about ByMètis Cancellations B.V. (by-metis.it)

How to fix it

The steps follow the lists in § 5(1) DDG and Article 5(1) of the directive. Which items apply depends on your legal form and your trade, so your legal adviser should confirm the final list.

  1. List what the law asks for your business. Write down the legal name and form, the street address where you are established, the people authorised to represent the company, the commercial register and number, the VAT ID, and any supervisory authority or professional body that applies to your trade.
  2. Add two ways to reach you. Give an email address and a second quick channel, such as a phone number or a contact form that sends a reply. The Court of Justice accepted other channels besides a phone line as long as they allow direct and efficient contact and are clearly shown.
  3. Put the page where people look. Create one imprint or legal-notice page and link it in the footer of every page, including the checkout. For German-language sites, the link text Impressum is the one visitors expect.
  4. Make the text real. Use text on the page rather than an image, so that people with screen readers and Peeky can read it.
  5. Cover every place you sell. Repeat the details on marketplace listings and social profiles that sell for you, using the fields the platform provides for it. Give each site its own correct entity.
  6. Re-scan. Run a scan again. The finding should clear once the page is reachable and each element is on it.

Questions

What is an impressum?

It is the German name for the page where a business says who it is: legal name, address, a way to reach it quickly, and its register and VAT numbers where it has them. The duty comes from Article 5 of the e-Commerce Directive and sits in § 5 of the German DDG. Most German-language sites link it as Impressum in the footer. The rule has the full list.

What does an impressum example look like?

A small online shop's page usually shows the company name with its legal form, a street address, an email address, a second way to get in touch such as a form or phone number, the commercial register and its number, and the VAT ID. A sole trader shows a personal name instead of a company form. The law fixes which details must appear, not the layout.

What is an impressum on Facebook?

It is the same identity information, shown on a business page instead of a website footer. German courts have applied the same identity duty to a seller's listings on a marketplace (see the Hamm ruling in the sources). Peeky only reads the public pages of your own site, so it does not look at social profiles.

Does a company outside Germany need an impressum?

The name Impressum is German, but the duty to show who runs the business exists in every EU country through Article 5 of the e-Commerce Directive. If you sell to German-speaking visitors, an imprint page is the expected place to put the details.

How does Peeky check for an imprint page?

Peeky follows the links on your public pages looking for a legal notice or imprint page, then reads it for a name, an address, an email, a phone number, and register and VAT details. It never sends a message to the address it finds. How a scan works has the full path.

Filed with

The rule

e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, Art. 5

Read the rule (e-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, Art. 5)

A case

Individual seller on an online auction platform

Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany), 2011

Read the decision (Individual seller on an online auction platform)

Your site

Is your website affected? Join now to find out.

Join now

Sources

The law

  1. Directive 2000/31/EC (e-Commerce Directive), Official Journal L 178, Arts. 5 and 20
  2. Directive 2011/83/EU (Consumer Rights Directive), consolidated text of 28 May 2022, Arts. 6 and 24
  3. Directive 2005/29/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), Art. 7(4)(b) and Annex II
  4. Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz vom 6. Mai 2024, § 5 (Allgemeine Informationspflichten)
  5. Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz, § 33 (Bußgeldvorschriften)
  6. UWG, § 3a (Rechtsbruch)
  7. UWG, § 8 (Beseitigung und Unterlassung)
  8. UWG, § 13 (Abmahnung; Unterlassungsverpflichtung; Haftung)
  9. Austria, E-Commerce-Gesetz, § 5 (Allgemeine Informationen), RIS
  10. Netherlands, Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 3, Art. 15d (information for users of an information society service)

Guidance

  1. European Commission, Guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2011/83/EU (2021/C 525/01), section on trader identity and contact details
  2. ACM (Netherlands), Bedrijfsgegevens vermelden (which company details a seller must show)
  3. Service Public Entreprendre (France), Mentions obligatoires sur le site internet d'un entrepreneur individuel
  4. Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Das korrekte Website-Impressum (August 2025)

Decisions and cases

  1. Oberlandesgericht Hamm, judgment of 15 March 2011, I-4 U 204/10
  2. Oberlandesgericht Hamm, judgment of 2 April 2009, 4 U 213/08 (no register or VAT number in the imprint)
  3. Oberlandesgericht Hamm, judgment of 4 August 2009, 4 U 11/09 (seller identity on auction listings)
  4. Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, judgment of 18 June 2013, I-20 U 145/12
  5. CJEU, judgment of 16 October 2008, Case C-298/07, Bundesverband v deutsche internet versicherung AG
  6. CJEU, Press release No 89/19, judgment of 10 July 2019 in Case C-649/17 (Amazon EU)
  7. UOKiK Wrocław branch, Decision No. RWR 23/2005 of 11 May 2005 (online sports shop)
  8. AGCM, PS11723, interim measures of 17 March 2020 (farmacocoronavirus.it)
  9. AGCM, Bollettino n. 42 of 28 October 2024, decision n. 31346 of 8 October 2024 (PS12700, ByMètis Cancellations B.V.)
  10. vzbv, 2 October 2026, Kammergericht Berlin judgment of 11 August 2026 (5 UKl 1/26): the email in the Amazon imprint may not be a dead mailbox

Last checked against the source:

For information only. Not legal advice.