Berlin Regional Court declares Lieferando tip clause invalid – platform has been automatically refunding tips on cancellations since March 2026
The Berlin Regional Court ruled on June 24, 2026 that Lieferando’s clause excluding the refund of pre‑paid tips on cancellations is invalid. Lieferando has removed the clause from its terms and has been automatically refunding tips since March 2026.
The Berlin Regional Court ruled on June 24, 2026 (Case No. 23 UKl 2/26) that the food‑delivery platform Lieferando may not categorically exclude the refund of a tip paid in advance. The decision follows a lawsuit by the Federal Association of Consumer Centres (vzbv) and could have far‑reaching implications for the entire sector.
Background of the disputed tip clause
In the previous terms and conditions of Lieferando, a clause read: “If the customer has received confirmation of the tip placement, the tip cannot be refunded or returned.” This wording excluded the refund of tips on cancellations – regardless of whether the restaurant itself cancelled the order or the customer withdrew the booking. Consumer groups criticised the practice as unlawful because the tip is paid before the service is rendered and therefore must be refundable in principle.
Court ruling and its consequences
The Berlin Regional Court found that the clause violated German consumer law and is therefore invalid. The judgment is not yet final; however, the court has already set a possible penalty: for violations, Lieferando faces a fine of up to 250,000 EUR or, alternatively, a custodial sentence of up to six months.
The decision has immediate practical consequences: Lieferando must automatically refund any tip already paid for each cancellation since March 2026. The platform has removed the disputed clause from its terms and implemented the refund in its systems.
Lieferando’s response and outlook for the industry
Lieferando confirmed in a brief statement that the clause is no longer part of the terms and that customers have been automatically refunded their tip on cancellations since March 2026. The company emphasized that it respects the court’s decision and has already implemented the changes.
A consumer‑law expert explains that the ruling sends an important signal to digital platforms: contract clauses that fundamentally restrict consumer rights are only permissible if they are transparent and proportionate. In this case, the blanket exclusion clause was disproportionate because it completely denied the right to a refund of payments already made.
For other food‑delivery providers such as Uber Eats, Wolt or DoorDash, the ruling means they must review and, if necessary, adjust their terms to avoid similar litigation. The decision could also serve as a precedent for further consumer actions against unfair contract terms in e‑commerce.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Berlin Regional Court |
| Date of judgment | June 24, 2026 |
| Clause content | No right to a refund when tip is confirmed |
| Ruling | Clause is invalid |
| Penalty | Fine up to 250,000 EUR or custodial sentence up to 6 months |
| Company response | Clause removed from terms; automatic refunds since March 2026 |
Source: Heise Online
Analysis: What does this mean for consumers and providers?
- Consumers will enjoy greater transparency and security when paying tips.
- Platforms must adjust their payment processes, which may entail short‑term technical and administrative effort.
- The prospect of fines increases the incentive for companies to proactively review their terms.
- In the long run, the ruling could lead to a harmonisation of contract terms across online commerce as consumer groups increasingly challenge similar clauses.
The ruling is an important step in German consumer protection and shows that courts are scrutinising digital business models more closely. While the judgment is not yet final, Lieferando has already responded – a sign that companies take the risk of litigation seriously and act quickly to maintain customer trust.