Implementing legislation for the withdrawal button published: Sec. 356a BGB enters into force on 19 June 2026

In our news article of November 2023 (German language only) and a more detailed analysis (Billing/Vetter, K&R 2024, 387), we had already reported on the upcoming introduction of the “withdrawal button” (Widerrufsbutton) and the associated challenges for businesses in the digital B2C sector. In a further news article of July 2025, we analysed the draft bill (Referentenentwurf) published shortly before by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz), and concluded that the draft implemented the requirements of the EU Directive almost verbatim, leaving key practical issues unresolved.

The legislative process has now been completed: The German Act to Amend Consumer Contract Law, Insurance Contract Law and Treatment Contract Law (Gesetz zur Änderung des Verbrauchervertrags- und des Versicherungsvertragsrechts sowie zur Änderung des Behandlungsvertragsrechts) was published in on 5 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 28). The new Sec. 356a of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) enters into force on 19 June 2026. From that date, all businesses that enable consumers to conclude distance contracts via an online user interface must provide an electronic withdrawal function. This also encompasses financial services contracts concluded at a distance; unlike Sec. 312k para. 1 BGB, which provides for an exemption from the cancellation button for such contracts, the new Sec.356a BGB does not grant any such exemption.

The final wording of the new Sec. 356a BGB

Compared to the draft bill of July 2025, the legislator changed the wording of Sec. 356a BGB in only one detail. The final version reads as follows (translated from German):

“§ 356a Electronic Withdrawal Function for Distance Contracts

(1) In the case of distance contracts concluded via an online user interface, the trader must ensure that the consumer can submit a withdrawal declaration on the online user interface by using a withdrawal function. The withdrawal function must be legibly labelled “withdraw from contract” [“Vertrag widerrufen”] or with another equally clear and unambiguous wording. It must be permanently available, prominently placed and easily accessible to the consumer on the online user interface during the withdrawal period.

(2) The withdrawal function must enable the consumer to submit a withdrawal declaration to the trader and to provide or confirm the following information to the trader in or with the withdrawal declaration without difficulty:

1. the consumer’s name;
2. information to identify the contract or part of the contract the consumer wishes to withdraw from;
3. information on the electronic means of communication by which a confirmation of receipt of the withdrawal is to be transmitted to the consumer.

(3) Once the consumer has provided or confirmed the information pursuant to paragraph 2, the trader must enable the consumer to submit the withdrawal declaration and the information to the trader by means of a confirmation function. This confirmation function must be legibly labelled “confirm withdrawal” [“Widerruf bestätigen”] or with another equally clear and unambiguous wording.

(4) If the consumer has activated the confirmation function, the trader must promptly transmit a confirmation of receipt to the consumer on a durable medium, containing at least the content of the withdrawal declaration pursuant to paragraph 2, as well as the date and time of its receipt.

(5) The consumer’s withdrawal declaration shall be deemed to have been received by the trader within the withdrawal period if the consumer sent the withdrawal declaration pursuant to paragraph 3 via the withdrawal function before the expiry of that period.”

Compared to the draft bill of July 2025, only the wording at the end of paragraph 2 no. 3 has changed. Whereas the draft bill of July 2025 provided that the confirmation of receipt was to be transmitted by the means of communication indicated by the consumer using the formulation “übermittelt werden soll” (shall be transmitted), the final version now uses the mandatory formulation “zu übermitteln ist” (is to be transmitted). This is only a drafting correction: the previous “shall” formulation could have created the impression that the trader was permitted to deviate from the means of communication chosen by the consumer. The revised wording – in line with Art. 11a para. 2 lit. c of the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU) as amended by the Directive (EU) 2023/2673 on financial services contracts concluded at a distance – clarifies that the confirmation of receipt must be transmitted using the means of communication specified by the consumer.

Extended legislative materials: some clarifications and remaining gaps

Although the German legislator barely changed the statutory text itself, the explanatory memorandum to the Government Bill (Gesetzesbegründung, BT-Drs. 21/1856, pp. 37-38) contains several noteworthy additions compared to the earlier draft bill. These explicitly address several of the practical problems already identified in our earlier publications – though they do not resolve all of them.

Blanket provision instead of individualisation

One of the problems we already discussed concerns the individualisation of the withdrawal button. In theory, the button should only be displayed to a consumer during the specific withdrawal period applicable to them. However, such individualisation is technically unfeasible – particularly where the button is displayed without a prior login.

The legislative materials now expressly address this issue and establish the blanket and permanent provision of the withdrawal function as the standard case. The explanatory memorandum clarifies that businesses must provide the withdrawal function “on a blanket basis” (“pauschal bereithalten”) where they cannot determine the individual withdrawal period, or can only do so with disproportionate effort – for example, because there is no login or for data protection reasons. The permanent display is said to be “harmless with regard to the running of the specific withdrawal period”. A misleading commercial practice (relevant under unfair competition law) is also said not to exist, since “from the perspective of a reasonable consumer” the mere display of the withdrawal function does not imply the simultaneous existence of a right of withdrawal.

The legislator thus confirms the consequence we described: the withdrawal function must, as a matter of principle, be provided permanently and indiscriminately. However, the resulting problem that this blanket display may invite unjustified withdrawal declarations and lead to considerable additional administrative effort in processing such declarations remains unresolved.

Withdrawal button in the login area as a possible exception

Notably, the legislative materials continue to provide for an exception under which the provision of the withdrawal function exclusively within the login area of a customer account is sufficient, “if and to the extent that the contract can exclusively be concluded by setting up a customer account”.

This distinction is of particular interest because it appears to differentiate the withdrawal button from the cancellation button under Sec. 312k BGB. For the latter, the courts have repeatedly held that online cancellation via the button mechanism must be possible without prior login (see Cologne Regional Court [Landgericht Köln], order of 29 July 2022 – 33 O 355/22; Berlin Higher Regional Court [Kammergericht], judgment of 18 November 2025 – 5 UKl 10/25, appeal pending before the Federal Court of Justice [Bundesgerichtshof]: I ZR 275/25). By contrast, the legislative materials for Sec. 356a BGB permit a login-only solution for the withdrawal button at least where the underlying contract itself requires the establishment of a customer account. This is likely to be particularly relevant for providers of financial services where consumer contracts are in some cases only concluded after a customer account has been set up.

Particularities for contracts concluded via third-party websites

The legislator has now also expressly addressed the problem we described regarding contracts concluded via intermediary platforms. The legislative materials clarify that it makes no difference for the obligation to provide the withdrawal function whether the contract is concluded via a website operated by the trader itself – or via a website operated by a third party. The trader must ensure that the consumer can use the withdrawal function and, “if necessary, contractually oblige the platform operator” to facilitate this.

This clearly places responsibility with the trader as the consumer’s contractual counterpart. However, the question of how this obligation is to be fulfilled in practice remains open. The “link-out solution” we described, which redirects the consumer from the platform to the trader’s own website, is not mentioned in the legislative materials. Nor is the problem addressed that the trader depends on the (ongoing) cooperation of the platform operator in such cases.

Possibility of a partial withdrawal

The legislative materials also address the possibility of a partial withdrawal, i.e. the withdrawal from only individual goods or services within a broader order. The legislator states that the specification of the contract or part of the contract to be withdrawn from must be “made concretely” and “may be made by selection in an order overview – for example via the customer account”. Here too, however, there is no clear indication of the practical consequence that either a prior login is indeed necessary, or the confirmation page must in these cases request more information than specified in Sec. 356a para. 2 BGB – for example through an additional input field for further specification of the part of the contract to be withdrawn from.

Apps as “online user interfaces”

The legislative materials define the term “online user interface” (“Online-Benutzeroberfläche”) as “software, including websites or parts thereof as well as applications, including mobile apps”. This confirms that the obligation to provide the withdrawal function also applies to apps through which consumers can conclude a distance contract.

Placement of the withdrawal button in the footer

The legislative materials also contain a new practical note on placement: the withdrawal function should be directly accessible from every subpage of the “online user interface”, with the trader being able to “use hyperlinks”. This confirms the approach we proposed to integrate the withdrawal button in the footer of the website.

However, an inconspicuous text link is expressly not sufficient. For placement in the footer, the legislative materials require “special measures such as colour choice or contrasts as well as a prominent placement that clearly distinguishes the withdrawal function from other information such as the general terms and conditions [AGB], the legal notice [Impressum] or similar”. The withdrawal button must therefore be clearly (e.g. through colour) visually highlighted relative to the other links in the footer.

Confirmation of receipt with note on pending review

Finally, the legislative materials contain a helpful recommendation regarding the wording of the confirmation of receipt. The legislator notes that care should be taken in the formulation to ensure “that the impression is not unintentionally created that the substantive legal validity of the withdrawal has already been assessed”. It may be advisable “to note in the confirmation of receipt that a review of the validity and scope of the withdrawal declaration is still pending”.

In practice, the automated confirmation e-mail should therefore contain a standard notice stating that the e-mail exclusively confirms the receipt of the withdrawal declaration and that a review of the validity and scope of the withdrawal is still pending. Formulations such as “confirmation of your withdrawal” or “your withdrawal is hereby confirmed” should be strictly avoided.

Outlook

With the publication of the implementing legislation, the introduction of the withdrawal button in Germany is complete. Businesses in the digital B2C sector now face concrete action requirements: by 19 June 2026, they must implement the electronic withdrawal function on their websites and, where applicable, also in their apps. In addition, the withdrawal instructions and internal processes for handling incoming withdrawal declarations must be updated. The model withdrawal instructions for distance contracts other than financial services contracts must be updated in accordance with the new drafting note 3 in Annex 1 (to Art. 246a Sec. 1 para. 2 sent. 2) of the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code (Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch – EGBGB) to inform the consumer about the new withdrawal button. A corresponding need for adjustment also arises for the withdrawal instructions for financial services contracts concluded at a distance, although the implementing legislation (regrettably) deletes the existing statutory model instructions in Annexes 3 to 3b (to Art. 246b Sec. 2 para. 3 sent. 1) EGBGB, referring to the full harmonisation sought by the Directive.

Although the extended legislative materials contain welcome clarifications, the structural problems we identified remain unresolved in the statute itself. The scope of the new provisions, which affects all consumer contracts in electronic commerce, should not be underestimated in its practical significance. It is to be expected that, after the new rules enter into force, there will be an increase in cease-and-desist warnings – similar to what has been observed following the introduction of the cancellation button under Sec. 312k BGB – particularly since the (non-)implementation of the withdrawal button will also be relatively easy to verify. In addition, failure to comply with or inadequate implementation of the new obligations may also result in significant administrative fines. Affected businesses should therefore begin with the technical and organisational implementation now.