The German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) announced a resolution in its investigation into Check24 GmbH. The Munich-based comparison giant has officially committed to abandoning the use of price parity clauses—also known as most-favored-nation (MFN) or best-price clauses—within its energy sector operations. This decision concludes an investigation launched in July 2025 and signals a rigorous new phase of antitrust enforcement regarding vertical restraints in digital markets.
The core of the investigation focused on contractual obligations that prevented energy suppliers from offering electricity and gas tariffs at lower prices through competing portals or their own direct sales channels. For a dominant intermediary like Check24, which accounts for approximately 60-70% of Germany’s online energy brokerage market, such clauses were found to stifle competition across multiple levels of the value chain. By enforcing price uniformity, the platform effectively insulated itself from the competitive pressure that would otherwise drive down commission fees or improve service quality.
Andreas Mundt, President of the Bundeskartellamt, emphasized that while comparison portals generally have a pro-competitive effect by facilitating provider switching, they must remain subject to the same competitive forces they provide to consumers. Mundt noted that when a market leader prevents suppliers from offering better deals elsewhere, it hinders the ability of alternative sales channels to assert themselves. The removal of these clauses ensures that energy suppliers regain the freedom to price their products according to the specific costs and efficiencies of each distribution channel.
The scope of the binding commitments is comprehensive. Check24 is now prohibited from making contractual relationships or commission structures dependent on a supplier’s pricing behavior on other platforms. Crucially, the settlement also bans “dimming”—the practice of reducing the visibility or search ranking of tariffs if a supplier offers lower prices elsewhere. This technical prohibition is vital for maintaining a level playing field, as algorithmic demotion can be just as exclusionary as direct contractual fines.
This case serves as a clear warning to intermediary services and digital platforms operating within the European Union. Following recent high-level court decisions, the influencing of a partner’s pricing strategy is increasingly viewed as a significant antitrust risk, particularly when initiated by a dominant market player. For financial and legal professionals, the Check24 settlement highlights the necessity of auditing existing terms and conditions to ensure they align with the evolving regulatory landscape of the digital economy.