Ruling on the Liability of the Crowdinvesting Platform Rockets

Our team achieved a sig­ni­fic­ant vic­tory for an in­vestor be­fore the Mu­nich I Re­gional Court. The plat­form was ordered to pay 9,915 euros plus in­terest — in ex­change for the as­sign­ment of claims arising from the “Taucha” pro­ject. In ad­di­tion, the court found that the plat­form was in de­fault of acceptance.

Why this rul­ing matters:

A clear stance against mis­lead­ing ad­vert­ising: The court deemed ad­vert­ising claims re­gard­ing “land re­gistry se­cur­ity” to be mis­lead­ing be­cause they gave the im­pres­sion that the risk was ac­tu­ally re­duced — without provid­ing trans­par­ent in­form­a­tion on the cre­ation and pri­or­ity of the land charge.
Strong in­vestor rights re­gard­ing dis­clos­ure ob­lig­a­tions: An in­form­a­tion agree­ment ex­ists between the in­vestor and the plat­form. Any­one provid­ing in­form­a­tion or ad­vert­ising must do so ac­cur­ately, com­pletely, and un­am­bigu­ously. If this stand­ard is not met, dam­ages are owed.
Spe­cific Con­sequences: Re­pay­ment of the in­vest­ment, in­terest from the date the case was filed, and a de­clar­a­tion of de­fault in acceptance.

What does this mean for investors?

“Col­lat­eral” must be ro­bust. If land charges or guar­an­tees are high­lighted as an ad­vant­age without clearly spe­cify­ing their pri­or­ity, cre­ation, or ac­tual value, this can trig­ger liability.
Plat­forms bear re­spons­ib­il­ity: Ad­vert­ising claims, land­ing pages, and pro­ject teas­ers will be scru­tin­ized even more closely in the future.

Our con­clu­sion:

This rul­ing sig­ni­fic­antly strengthens in­vestor pro­tec­tion in crowd in­vest­ing. Ad­vert­ising claims re­gard­ing “col­lat­eral” must be sub­stan­ti­ated and trans­par­ent — oth­er­wise, there is a risk of res­cis­sion and dam­ages. We con­sist­ently en­force these rights on be­half of our clients.